Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
In a message dated 1/4/2006 1:22:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
He has since kindly forwarded to
me a page from the book, Analecta Hibernica, No. 18, The O'Clery Book
of Genealogies (Irish MSS. Comm.), edited by Seamus Pender, published
in 1951.
Could you indicate some date for this MSS?
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
He has since kindly forwarded to
me a page from the book, Analecta Hibernica, No. 18, The O'Clery Book
of Genealogies (Irish MSS. Comm.), edited by Seamus Pender, published
in 1951.
Could you indicate some date for this MSS?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
I whish good luck to the author in his project but would like members
of SGM to know I do not endorse this web site nore have I willingly
participated in its elaboration other then making public my Meherenc
findings on SGM as I will continue to do.
Jean Bunot
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
of SGM to know I do not endorse this web site nore have I willingly
participated in its elaboration other then making public my Meherenc
findings on SGM as I will continue to do.
Jean Bunot
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
Jean,
Thank you! I have started a forum website dedicated for the Meherenc and
related familes, it will
also lead to the development of a website in memory of ancestor Francoise de
Meherenc. Coats of arms will be added and other documents as well.
http://groups.msn.com/MeherencGenealogy
Bob
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Jean,
I was not aware that SGM owned this rootsweb forum! If they do then fine,
I do not
feel threatened even if they did, if anything I think its great they do,
this will give me the oportunity to provide more information, specifically
speaking, you indicated you may need
some indications as to the placement of Isabeau MALHERBE, perhaps the entry
below
may direct you closer to that goal. The source is from Pastor Vatinel's(from
france)paper,
the complete paper can be downloaded from my website..All material posted
from my website
is not for sale and shall remain as such..
Guillaume "le jeune", écuyer, seigneur des Londes (1463, 1499), maintenu
par Monfaut (1463),
demeure à Trévières (1463), † 1499/1500
x1 /1462 avec Thomine DU VIVIER (alias DE LA LONDE)
x2 (Cm. 1475/1480) Isabeau MALHERBE (dame du Breuil et de La Vacquerie)
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/
I was not aware that SGM owned this rootsweb forum! If they do then fine,
I do not
feel threatened even if they did, if anything I think its great they do,
this will give me the oportunity to provide more information, specifically
speaking, you indicated you may need
some indications as to the placement of Isabeau MALHERBE, perhaps the entry
below
may direct you closer to that goal. The source is from Pastor Vatinel's(from
france)paper,
the complete paper can be downloaded from my website..All material posted
from my website
is not for sale and shall remain as such..
Guillaume "le jeune", écuyer, seigneur des Londes (1463, 1499), maintenu
par Monfaut (1463),
demeure à Trévières (1463), † 1499/1500
x1 /1462 avec Thomine DU VIVIER (alias DE LA LONDE)
x2 (Cm. 1475/1480) Isabeau MALHERBE (dame du Breuil et de La Vacquerie)
From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 4 Jan 2006 10:54:22 -0800
I whish good luck to the author in his project but would like members
of SGM to know I do not endorse this web site nore have I willingly
participated in its elaboration other then making public my Meherenc
findings on SGM as I will continue to do.
Jean Bunot
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
Jean,
Thank you! I have started a forum website dedicated for the Meherenc
and
related familes, it will
also lead to the development of a website in memory of ancestor
Francoise de
Meherenc. Coats of arms will be added and other documents as well.
http://groups.msn.com/MeherencGenealogy
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/
-
Gjest
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Please post here on soc.genealogy.medieval the document from Pasteur
Vatinel. In advance, thank you kindly. Jean Bunot
Vatinel. In advance, thank you kindly. Jean Bunot
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
Dear Will ~
I have no idea about the date of the Burgh manuscript. Someone
familiar with the O'Clery Book of Genealogies will have to answer this
question.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have no idea about the date of the Burgh manuscript. Someone
familiar with the O'Clery Book of Genealogies will have to answer this
question.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/4/2006 1:22:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
He has since kindly forwarded to
me a page from the book, Analecta Hibernica, No. 18, The O'Clery Book
of Genealogies (Irish MSS. Comm.), edited by Seamus Pender, published
in 1951.
Could you indicate some date for this MSS?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Jean,
let me check with the pastuer Vatinel first to see if its ok with him and
other author first.
Give me a couple of days for the pastuer to respond with
permissions/authorizations..
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
let me check with the pastuer Vatinel first to see if its ok with him and
other author first.
Give me a couple of days for the pastuer to respond with
permissions/authorizations..
Bob
From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 4 Jan 2006 11:59:11 -0800
Please post here on soc.genealogy.medieval the document from Pasteur
Vatinel. In advance, thank you kindly. Jean Bunot
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
-
Gjest
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
In a message dated 1/4/06 11:37:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
<< I was not aware that SGM owned this rootsweb forum! If they do then
fine,
I do not feel threatened even if they did, if anything I think its great
they do,
this will give me the oportunity to provide more information, >>
SGM does not own GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com nor vice versa.
They are two independent entities.
However they echo each other. They are tied together like siamese twins.
Some people like to post via SGM, some like to post via GEN-MED.
It makes no difference.
Will Johnson
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
<< I was not aware that SGM owned this rootsweb forum! If they do then
fine,
I do not feel threatened even if they did, if anything I think its great
they do,
this will give me the oportunity to provide more information, >>
SGM does not own GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com nor vice versa.
They are two independent entities.
However they echo each other. They are tied together like siamese twins.
Some people like to post via SGM, some like to post via GEN-MED.
It makes no difference.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
I wish you had bestowed upon me the same elementary courtesy by first
asking before publishing my findings on your web site. I would have
gladly agreed anyway being a firm believer in reseachers sharing
informations and data. Jean Bunot
asking before publishing my findings on your web site. I would have
gladly agreed anyway being a firm believer in reseachers sharing
informations and data. Jean Bunot
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Jean,
Upon many conversations with you thru private email and forum email I
would have never thought that this was an issue with you, do I have your
permission? If not, I will remove it. I apologize, but thought it was ok.
bob
From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 4 Jan 2006 13:07:51 -0800
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
Upon many conversations with you thru private email and forum email I
would have never thought that this was an issue with you, do I have your
permission? If not, I will remove it. I apologize, but thought it was ok.
bob
From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 4 Jan 2006 13:07:51 -0800
I wish you had bestowed upon me the same elementary courtesy by first
asking before publishing my findings on your web site. I would have
gladly agreed anyway being a firm believer in reseachers sharing
informations and data. Jean Bunot
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
-
pj.evans
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
http://members.aol.com/lochlan/gensourc.htm
Ms. 23 D 17 Royal Irish Academy
Thought to have been written by Cu Choigcriche O Cleirigh, one of the
Four Masters, head of the Tirconnell sept of the O'Clerys (O'Donovan);
held the lands of Coobeg and Doughill in the barony of Boylagh and
Banagh, Co. Donegal, from 1631 to 1632, at which date he was
dispossessed of his lands and removed, with other Tirconnell families,
to Ballcroy, Erris barony, Co. Mayo, under the guidance of Rory
O'Donnell, son of Col. Manus O'Donnell, slain at Benburb, 1646.
Carried with him his books, his most treasured possession, and later
bequeathed them to his sons, Diarmait and Sean. Cu Choigcriche's son
Diarmait had a son Cairbre, who removed to the parish of Drung, Co.
Cavan, and was the father of Cosnahach (1693-1759). His only son
Patrick O'Clery had six sons, one of whom, John O'Clery, removed to
Dublin in 1817 bringing with him the Leabhar Gabhala, the Book of
Genealogies, the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell and the Topographical Poems
of O'Dugan and O'Heerin, all in the handwriting of his ancestor, Cu
Choigcriche.
Later briefly in the possession of Mr. Patrick Lynch (d. 1817) and
Patrick Vincent FitzPatrick of Capel St. Dublin, bookseller. Purchased
by the Royal Irish Academy at the auction sale of Edward O'Reilly's
Books and Irish MSS., Nov. 1830 (6pds).
Printed in the Analecta Hibernica, No. 18,
1951
Abstracted from notes by the editor,
Seamus Pender, M.A.
Isn't Google wonderful - thirty seconds flat.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Ms. 23 D 17 Royal Irish Academy
Thought to have been written by Cu Choigcriche O Cleirigh, one of the
Four Masters, head of the Tirconnell sept of the O'Clerys (O'Donovan);
held the lands of Coobeg and Doughill in the barony of Boylagh and
Banagh, Co. Donegal, from 1631 to 1632, at which date he was
dispossessed of his lands and removed, with other Tirconnell families,
to Ballcroy, Erris barony, Co. Mayo, under the guidance of Rory
O'Donnell, son of Col. Manus O'Donnell, slain at Benburb, 1646.
Carried with him his books, his most treasured possession, and later
bequeathed them to his sons, Diarmait and Sean. Cu Choigcriche's son
Diarmait had a son Cairbre, who removed to the parish of Drung, Co.
Cavan, and was the father of Cosnahach (1693-1759). His only son
Patrick O'Clery had six sons, one of whom, John O'Clery, removed to
Dublin in 1817 bringing with him the Leabhar Gabhala, the Book of
Genealogies, the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell and the Topographical Poems
of O'Dugan and O'Heerin, all in the handwriting of his ancestor, Cu
Choigcriche.
Later briefly in the possession of Mr. Patrick Lynch (d. 1817) and
Patrick Vincent FitzPatrick of Capel St. Dublin, bookseller. Purchased
by the Royal Irish Academy at the auction sale of Edward O'Reilly's
Books and Irish MSS., Nov. 1830 (6pds).
Printed in the Analecta Hibernica, No. 18,
1951
Abstracted from notes by the editor,
Seamus Pender, M.A.
Isn't Google wonderful - thirty seconds flat.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Will ~
I have no idea about the date of the Burgh manuscript. Someone
familiar with the O'Clery Book of Genealogies will have to answer this
question.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/4/2006 1:22:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
He has since kindly forwarded to
me a page from the book, Analecta Hibernica, No. 18, The O'Clery Book
of Genealogies (Irish MSS. Comm.), edited by Seamus Pender, published
in 1951.
Could you indicate some date for this MSS?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
In a message dated 1/4/06 1:52:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pj.evans.gen@usa.net writes:
<< Thought to have been written by Cu Choigcriche O Cleirigh, one of the Four
Masters, head of the Tirconnell sept of the O'Clerys (O'Donovan); held the
lands of Coobeg and Doughill in the barony of Boylagh and Banagh, Co. Donegal,
from 1631 to 1632, at which date he was dispossessed of his lands >>
So even further removed from the date of the *event*.
My opinion would be that this does not add anything to the argument, being so
many centuries after.
But I do note, that there are so many gaps in the Burgh ancestry, that this
particular argument is not the only source for finding kinship between the
royal family and the Burghs.
Will Johnson
pj.evans.gen@usa.net writes:
<< Thought to have been written by Cu Choigcriche O Cleirigh, one of the Four
Masters, head of the Tirconnell sept of the O'Clerys (O'Donovan); held the
lands of Coobeg and Doughill in the barony of Boylagh and Banagh, Co. Donegal,
from 1631 to 1632, at which date he was dispossessed of his lands >>
So even further removed from the date of the *event*.
My opinion would be that this does not add anything to the argument, being so
many centuries after.
But I do note, that there are so many gaps in the Burgh ancestry, that this
particular argument is not the only source for finding kinship between the
royal family and the Burghs.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
Dear Lee,
Aside from Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent can think of only
two persons who had rapid, non Church related rises in England off hand in the
twelveth century these are William Longespee , jure uxoris Earl of Salisbury
and William Marshal, jure uxoris Earl of Pembroke. Note that William Marshal`s
mother Sibyl was a close relative (? aunt) of Ela , Countess of Salisbury.
note too that Domnall Mor O`Brien`s daughter`s mother was a daughter of Dermait
MacMurrough, King of Leinster and so a niece of Eva (MacMurrough) de Clare,
making the Marshal descendants cousins of the de Burghs.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Aside from Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent can think of only
two persons who had rapid, non Church related rises in England off hand in the
twelveth century these are William Longespee , jure uxoris Earl of Salisbury
and William Marshal, jure uxoris Earl of Pembroke. Note that William Marshal`s
mother Sibyl was a close relative (? aunt) of Ela , Countess of Salisbury.
note too that Domnall Mor O`Brien`s daughter`s mother was a daughter of Dermait
MacMurrough, King of Leinster and so a niece of Eva (MacMurrough) de Clare,
making the Marshal descendants cousins of the de Burghs.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
This exchange could have been avoided had you behaved in a more
gentlemanlike manner and just ask prior to publish.
Do you not see that you are doing exactly the same thing with Pasteur
Vatinel since now you seek his permission to post on SGM a document
that can already be freely downloaded from your web site, a web site
which you advertize on SGM/GEN-MED.
I might add I was in no way aware that by answering your numerous
questions in private emails I was giving my consent to publish every
thing on a soon to be web site. It would just have been nice if not
fair to let me know in advance.
Never the less, I do not oppose my findings appearing of your web site
since it is already too late. Besides I do have a policy of sharing my
findings with others (generally through SGM), strongly believing that
such a collective approach has better chances to leed to interesting
breakthroughs.
No bad feelings intended.
Jean Bunot
gentlemanlike manner and just ask prior to publish.
Do you not see that you are doing exactly the same thing with Pasteur
Vatinel since now you seek his permission to post on SGM a document
that can already be freely downloaded from your web site, a web site
which you advertize on SGM/GEN-MED.
I might add I was in no way aware that by answering your numerous
questions in private emails I was giving my consent to publish every
thing on a soon to be web site. It would just have been nice if not
fair to let me know in advance.
Never the less, I do not oppose my findings appearing of your web site
since it is already too late. Besides I do have a policy of sharing my
findings with others (generally through SGM), strongly believing that
such a collective approach has better chances to leed to interesting
breakthroughs.
No bad feelings intended.
Jean Bunot
-
jeffchip9
Re: Sir John Griffith IPM 1471
The scanned copies didn't work out well because they were scans of
copies of copies. I had my original copies blown up to 11 by 17 and I
mailed them to Michael Miller. I hope that he will be able to work
with them; they were the best that could be obtained. I am very
interested in the results of his study; I think that these Griffiths
were probably not Jane Neville's children, but it will be nice to see
the results since as far as I know nobody has examined the contents of
this Sir John Griffith IPM in 90 years (and even then nobody has ever
said what was in it). It's curious to me that Walter and Rhys had
their children at an older than normal age, but perhaps that was the
way it was.
Jeff Chipman
copies of copies. I had my original copies blown up to 11 by 17 and I
mailed them to Michael Miller. I hope that he will be able to work
with them; they were the best that could be obtained. I am very
interested in the results of his study; I think that these Griffiths
were probably not Jane Neville's children, but it will be nice to see
the results since as far as I know nobody has examined the contents of
this Sir John Griffith IPM in 90 years (and even then nobody has ever
said what was in it). It's curious to me that Walter and Rhys had
their children at an older than normal age, but perhaps that was the
way it was.
Jeff Chipman
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
In a message dated 1/3/06 3:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>
I want to point out one more thing. Douglas here is assuming that certain
laws of inheritence are at work here. That is, in particular, that the eldest
son inherited everything, or at least the *main* land or the ancestral land.
Appropos of that, recently I was forwarded an article "Arms and the Man, but
which Man? A look at Early Murray arms" by Alex Maxwell Findlater. I do not
know when or where this may have been published, that was not included in what
I was sent. On this particular point, however, of whether all lands descended
to the eldest surviving son, he has something germane to say, which I quote:
"Working on this hypothesis, we can perhaps suggest that the very large
combined Olifard, Calder and Murray inheritance was divided to give the younger son
a good estate. This was certainly not uncommon at that time, in that often
the Scottish estates were left to one son and the English to another. We know
that in both the Vipont and Balliol families the inheritance was split more than
two ways. Sir Walter Murray made a grant in 1278, in the lifetime of both his
father and brother, to the monks of Dryburgh, releasing them from the
multures which they paid from their lands in Smallham, sheriffdom of Berwick. This is
probably an indication of a substantial division of the lands."
So it's quite possible that the reason Burgh went to a younger son, was
simply because the eldest was already provided for.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>
I want to point out one more thing. Douglas here is assuming that certain
laws of inheritence are at work here. That is, in particular, that the eldest
son inherited everything, or at least the *main* land or the ancestral land.
Appropos of that, recently I was forwarded an article "Arms and the Man, but
which Man? A look at Early Murray arms" by Alex Maxwell Findlater. I do not
know when or where this may have been published, that was not included in what
I was sent. On this particular point, however, of whether all lands descended
to the eldest surviving son, he has something germane to say, which I quote:
"Working on this hypothesis, we can perhaps suggest that the very large
combined Olifard, Calder and Murray inheritance was divided to give the younger son
a good estate. This was certainly not uncommon at that time, in that often
the Scottish estates were left to one son and the English to another. We know
that in both the Vipont and Balliol families the inheritance was split more than
two ways. Sir Walter Murray made a grant in 1278, in the lifetime of both his
father and brother, to the monks of Dryburgh, releasing them from the
multures which they paid from their lands in Smallham, sheriffdom of Berwick. This is
probably an indication of a substantial division of the lands."
So it's quite possible that the reason Burgh went to a younger son, was
simply because the eldest was already provided for.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
It should be remembered that Hubert de Burgh's estates is largely based on
his holdings in 1232. This date is a long time after his brother's Williams
death, usually said to have died in early 1205, so unless there is evidence
that Hubert held the "hereditary" property before that date, he may have
inherited them via his brother rather than his father.
It is perhaps possible that both William and Hubert (through his brother)
were heirs to their father. Traditional pedigrees give William a son Richard,
Lord of Connought, but from what has been said I'm not sure how solid this
filtration is.
Adrian
In a message dated 05/01/2006 00:08:56 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 1/3/06 3:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>
I want to point out one more thing. Douglas here is assuming that certain
laws of inheritence are at work here. That is, in particular, that the
eldest
son inherited everything, or at least the *main* land or the ancestral land.
Appropos of that, recently I was forwarded an article "Arms and the Man, but
which Man? A look at Early Murray arms" by Alex Maxwell Findlater. I do not
know when or where this may have been published, that was not included in
what
I was sent. On this particular point, however, of whether all lands
descended
to the eldest surviving son, he has something germane to say, which I quote:
"Working on this hypothesis, we can perhaps suggest that the very large
combined Olifard, Calder and Murray inheritance was divided to give the
younger son
a good estate. This was certainly not uncommon at that time, in that often
the Scottish estates were left to one son and the English to another. We
know
that in both the Vipont and Balliol families the inheritance was split more
than
two ways. Sir Walter Murray made a grant in 1278, in the lifetime of both
his
father and brother, to the monks of Dryburgh, releasing them from the
multures which they paid from their lands in Smallham, sheriffdom of
Berwick. This is
probably an indication of a substantial division of the lands."
So it's quite possible that the reason Burgh went to a younger son, was
simply because the eldest was already provided for.
Will Johnson
his holdings in 1232. This date is a long time after his brother's Williams
death, usually said to have died in early 1205, so unless there is evidence
that Hubert held the "hereditary" property before that date, he may have
inherited them via his brother rather than his father.
It is perhaps possible that both William and Hubert (through his brother)
were heirs to their father. Traditional pedigrees give William a son Richard,
Lord of Connought, but from what has been said I'm not sure how solid this
filtration is.
Adrian
In a message dated 05/01/2006 00:08:56 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 1/3/06 3:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>
I want to point out one more thing. Douglas here is assuming that certain
laws of inheritence are at work here. That is, in particular, that the
eldest
son inherited everything, or at least the *main* land or the ancestral land.
Appropos of that, recently I was forwarded an article "Arms and the Man, but
which Man? A look at Early Murray arms" by Alex Maxwell Findlater. I do not
know when or where this may have been published, that was not included in
what
I was sent. On this particular point, however, of whether all lands
descended
to the eldest surviving son, he has something germane to say, which I quote:
"Working on this hypothesis, we can perhaps suggest that the very large
combined Olifard, Calder and Murray inheritance was divided to give the
younger son
a good estate. This was certainly not uncommon at that time, in that often
the Scottish estates were left to one son and the English to another. We
know
that in both the Vipont and Balliol families the inheritance was split more
than
two ways. Sir Walter Murray made a grant in 1278, in the lifetime of both
his
father and brother, to the monks of Dryburgh, releasing them from the
multures which they paid from their lands in Smallham, sheriffdom of
Berwick. This is
probably an indication of a substantial division of the lands."
So it's quite possible that the reason Burgh went to a younger son, was
simply because the eldest was already provided for.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
In a message dated 1/4/06 6:15:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:
<< From; Debrett's Peerage - Scotland & Ireland 1825 page 781
The family of De Burgh ranks among the most ancient in the united
kingdoms. Hubert de Burgh earl of kent, was one of the greatest
subjects in Europe,in the reings of king John and Henry III.
His uncle, Adelm de Burgh settled in Ireland and was ancestor of
Richard de Burgh, Lord of Connaught and Trim, who d. 1243, leaving
two sons, Walter earl of Ulster, and William, ancestor of the earls of
Clanricarde. >>
However, when secondary sources conflict. You have to go back to primary
ones.
So this doesn't add anything to the discussion, imho.
This just repeats more of what's already been said and unsaid.
Will
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:
<< From; Debrett's Peerage - Scotland & Ireland 1825 page 781
The family of De Burgh ranks among the most ancient in the united
kingdoms. Hubert de Burgh earl of kent, was one of the greatest
subjects in Europe,in the reings of king John and Henry III.
His uncle, Adelm de Burgh settled in Ireland and was ancestor of
Richard de Burgh, Lord of Connaught and Trim, who d. 1243, leaving
two sons, Walter earl of Ulster, and William, ancestor of the earls of
Clanricarde. >>
However, when secondary sources conflict. You have to go back to primary
ones.
So this doesn't add anything to the discussion, imho.
This just repeats more of what's already been said and unsaid.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
Dear Douglas,
I don`t think Hubert de Burgh`s rise to power was all
that rapid. Yes, He was an official of some sort under Richard I and was made
justiciar under John and retained by the regent William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke under and after whose death in 1222 He fought the attempts of King Louis
VIII of France to gain the English throne and was rewarded with the Earldom of
Kent in 1227. In one website I saw that He married a daughter of William de
Vernon, Earl of Devon in about 1200. He is stated to have died in 1243 and his
Earldom died with him though He left two sons... hardly the treatment one would
expect of a natural son of Richard or John. Could He have been the son of a
bastard Gloucester daughter or perhaps a Cornwall ? Or maybe his wife`s mother
was.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I don`t think Hubert de Burgh`s rise to power was all
that rapid. Yes, He was an official of some sort under Richard I and was made
justiciar under John and retained by the regent William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke under and after whose death in 1222 He fought the attempts of King Louis
VIII of France to gain the English throne and was rewarded with the Earldom of
Kent in 1227. In one website I saw that He married a daughter of William de
Vernon, Earl of Devon in about 1200. He is stated to have died in 1243 and his
Earldom died with him though He left two sons... hardly the treatment one would
expect of a natural son of Richard or John. Could He have been the son of a
bastard Gloucester daughter or perhaps a Cornwall ? Or maybe his wife`s mother
was.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism
Will,
I understand your question. Both Robert and Philippa would have been pre-teens with a 1382 date. After looking for the last several hours, I don't have this in my sources anywhere and I am not sure how I arrived at this. Or that I did. I had a lot of problems with the formatting. That said, I did type that date for someone's marriage on those trees and cannot now identify who or why. I retract it.
Thanks for catching that.
Tough work, this.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:07:39 EST
In a message dated 12/31/05 9:46:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:
<< Richard and Phillipa fathered Phillipa who married (before 1382) Robert
Pashley. Anne Pashley and John Pashley were the children. >>
Could you state what argument you used to prove that Robert and Phillipa were
married "before 1382" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
I understand your question. Both Robert and Philippa would have been pre-teens with a 1382 date. After looking for the last several hours, I don't have this in my sources anywhere and I am not sure how I arrived at this. Or that I did. I had a lot of problems with the formatting. That said, I did type that date for someone's marriage on those trees and cannot now identify who or why. I retract it.
Thanks for catching that.
Tough work, this.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:07:39 EST
In a message dated 12/31/05 9:46:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:
<< Richard and Phillipa fathered Phillipa who married (before 1382) Robert
Pashley. Anne Pashley and John Pashley were the children. >>
Could you state what argument you used to prove that Robert and Phillipa were
married "before 1382" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
Dear Paula ~
Thank you for posting this information. Much appreciated.
DR
Thank you for posting this information. Much appreciated.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear Leo,
Thanks for that.
A cursory review failed to identify the common ancestor
for Richard de Burgh and Edward I of England that would
produce the 6th cousin 1x removed relationship you
mentioned. If you could advise as to which individual, or
couple, was involved, that would be most appreciated.
Of course, if the closer relationship in fact existed,
I wager that's the one Edward I had in mind: I think of my
2nd cousin (1x removed) Read Dunn in that context (not the
fact that he was also my 4th cousin, 1x removed * ).
Cheers,
John
* P.S. - And no, don't call me 'Longshanks'......
Thanks for that.
A cursory review failed to identify the common ancestor
for Richard de Burgh and Edward I of England that would
produce the 6th cousin 1x removed relationship you
mentioned. If you could advise as to which individual, or
couple, was involved, that would be most appreciated.
Of course, if the closer relationship in fact existed,
I wager that's the one Edward I had in mind: I think of my
2nd cousin (1x removed) Read Dunn in that context (not the
fact that he was also my 4th cousin, 1x removed * ).
Cheers,
John
* P.S. - And no, don't call me 'Longshanks'......
-
CED
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear James,
To put a finer point on Hubert de Burgh's rapid rise to a position of
influence, he was, according to most who have studued him, born about
1175, and by 1200, he was heading a mission to the king of Portugal,
sent to negotiate a marriage between King John and a daughter of that
king. Would a nobody from no place, aged about 25, be sent on such a
mission?
CED
Dear Lee,
Aside from Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent can think of only
two persons who had rapid, non Church related rises in England off hand in the
twelveth century these are William Longespee , jure uxoris Earl of Salisbury
and William Marshal, jure uxoris Earl of Pembroke. Note that William Marshal`s
mother Sibyl was a close relative (? aunt) of Ela , Countess of Salisbury.
note too that Domnall Mor O`Brien`s daughter`s mother was a daughter of Dermait
MacMurrough, King of Leinster and so a niece of Eva (MacMurrough) de Clare,
making the Marshal descendants cousins of the de Burghs.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Dear James,
To put a finer point on Hubert de Burgh's rapid rise to a position of
influence, he was, according to most who have studued him, born about
1175, and by 1200, he was heading a mission to the king of Portugal,
sent to negotiate a marriage between King John and a daughter of that
king. Would a nobody from no place, aged about 25, be sent on such a
mission?
CED
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Jean,
#1 posting a paper for private downloading viewing is one thing and
displaying on a website are 2 entirley different transactions. To be honest
with you, this paper was given to me to do whatever I want and one should
not comment unless they fully understand the situation and imposing such
harsh Judgements to deform my character are not acceptable. If you have
downloaded it then I wont waste my time posting it on SGM/GEN-MED. In either
case let me know.
#2 I understand your situation and I have apologized, what more do you want
from me, if you want to go after the 100's of websites that have posted your
findings then you may have a lot of people
to gripe at in the future I will ask for your permission, thats if you
choose
#3 In terms of posting to SGM/GEN-MED, I will continue to do so and have no
intentions of being selfish, My website shall serve to be another outlet to
obtain addional information.
No harm intended.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
#1 posting a paper for private downloading viewing is one thing and
displaying on a website are 2 entirley different transactions. To be honest
with you, this paper was given to me to do whatever I want and one should
not comment unless they fully understand the situation and imposing such
harsh Judgements to deform my character are not acceptable. If you have
downloaded it then I wont waste my time posting it on SGM/GEN-MED. In either
case let me know.
#2 I understand your situation and I have apologized, what more do you want
from me, if you want to go after the 100's of websites that have posted your
findings then you may have a lot of people
to gripe at in the future I will ask for your permission, thats if you
choose
#3 In terms of posting to SGM/GEN-MED, I will continue to do so and have no
intentions of being selfish, My website shall serve to be another outlet to
obtain addional information.
No harm intended.
From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 4 Jan 2006 14:42:35 -0800
This exchange could have been avoided had you behaved in a more
gentlemanlike manner and just ask prior to publish.
Do you not see that you are doing exactly the same thing with Pasteur
Vatinel since now you seek his permission to post on SGM a document
that can already be freely downloaded from your web site, a web site
which you advertize on SGM/GEN-MED.
I might add I was in no way aware that by answering your numerous
questions in private emails I was giving my consent to publish every
thing on a soon to be web site. It would just have been nice if not
fair to let me know in advance.
Never the less, I do not oppose my findings appearing of your web site
since it is already too late. Besides I do have a policy of sharing my
findings with others (generally through SGM), strongly believing that
such a collective approach has better chances to leed to interesting
breakthroughs.
No bad feelings intended.
Jean Bunot
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
-
CED
Re: Hubert de Burgh
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear James,
Two comments:
One-- Hubert de Burgh's earldom was a consequence of his marriage to,
Margaret, the daughter of William the Lion, king of Scotland. The
grant of the earldom had a limitation on its remainder, the grant was
to Hubert and his heirs of the body of Margaret. Hubert's son, John,
was the issue of hubert's first marriage to Beatrice Warenne (heiress
of a cadet branch of the Warenne family. This was her seond marriage,
the first being to Doon Bardolf (who held the barony of Wormegay, by
tenure), by whom she had an heir, William Bardolf. Hubert's son, John,
inherited what was left of his father's estates after the fall.
Hubert's only known issue by his marriage to Margaret of Scotland was a
daughter, Margaret (who had an ill-fated marriage to Richard de Clare)
died during the lives of her parents.
Two-- This marriage, though contracted, did not take place. This
contract has been the subject of some question. How was an otherwise
unknown knight (we only assume his being a knight at this time) able to
make arrangement to marry an heiress of the earl of Devon? What
intervened to stop the marriage?
CED
Dear Douglas,
I don`t think Hubert de Burgh`s rise to power was all
that rapid. Yes, He was an official of some sort under Richard I and was made
justiciar under John and retained by the regent William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke under and after whose death in 1222 He fought the attempts of King Louis
VIII of France to gain the English throne and was rewarded with the Earldom of
Kent in 1227.
Dear James,
Two comments:
One-- Hubert de Burgh's earldom was a consequence of his marriage to,
Margaret, the daughter of William the Lion, king of Scotland. The
grant of the earldom had a limitation on its remainder, the grant was
to Hubert and his heirs of the body of Margaret. Hubert's son, John,
was the issue of hubert's first marriage to Beatrice Warenne (heiress
of a cadet branch of the Warenne family. This was her seond marriage,
the first being to Doon Bardolf (who held the barony of Wormegay, by
tenure), by whom she had an heir, William Bardolf. Hubert's son, John,
inherited what was left of his father's estates after the fall.
Hubert's only known issue by his marriage to Margaret of Scotland was a
daughter, Margaret (who had an ill-fated marriage to Richard de Clare)
died during the lives of her parents.
In one website I saw that He married a daughter of William de
Vernon, Earl of Devon in about 1200.
Two-- This marriage, though contracted, did not take place. This
contract has been the subject of some question. How was an otherwise
unknown knight (we only assume his being a knight at this time) able to
make arrangement to marry an heiress of the earl of Devon? What
intervened to stop the marriage?
CED
He is stated to have died in 1243 and his
Earldom died with him though He left two sons... hardly the treatment one would
expect of a natural son of Richard or John. Could He have been the son of a
bastard Gloucester daughter or perhaps a Cornwall ? Or maybe his wife`s mother
was.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
Will Jhonson raised (3rd Jan) three Whittington queries in separate postings,
as to:-
1.Identity of William W, Lord of Pauntley in 1371/2
2.Identity of Elizabeth, mother of Marie Littleton, nee Whittington; and
3.Dates for Thomas Throckmorton and his wife Margaret, Marie Littleton's
sister
I hope it will be thought convenient that I should deal with all three
queries in one reply.
1. The William W referred to was the elder brother of Robert and of Richard,
the mayor of London, being the eldest son of another William (who was an MP in
1348, and died, I believe -but without a source- in 1350). He was himself an
MP in October 1377, and though twice married died sp, leaving his brother
Robert as his heir: see the Parliamentary biographies sv Robert W.
2. I agree with Will that the marriage settlement dated 1st September 1498
(Birmingham City Archives MS 3279/351989 ) made for Sir William Littleton and
his wife Marie establishes that Marie was the daughter of William Whittington
(d 1470) and his wife Elizabeth, sister of John Arundel, bishop of Coventry
and (later) Exeter. It was her brother John W who married first Elizabeth Croft
and secondly Elizabeth Milborne.
Thanks for correcting my error, Will
3. Sorry, I'm no expert on the Throckmortons. There is however a document in
the Shakespeare Birthplace archives of Throckmorton of Coughton which seems to
reflect a division of Thomas Whittington's estate among his co-heiresses:-
Manor of Upton Haselor
FILE - Deed - ref. DR5/1243 - date: 1 November 1588
<IMG SRC="http://www.a2a.org.uk/images/file.gif" WIDTH="32" HEIGHT="19" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="929">[from Scope and Content] Appointment by Roger Bodenham of
Rotherwas, Herefordshire esq. of Thomas Beale of the Inner Temple as attorney to
convey to Thomas Throckmorton esq. his share of the manor of Upton Haselor with
lands etc. belonging to the same.
MM
as to:-
1.Identity of William W, Lord of Pauntley in 1371/2
2.Identity of Elizabeth, mother of Marie Littleton, nee Whittington; and
3.Dates for Thomas Throckmorton and his wife Margaret, Marie Littleton's
sister
I hope it will be thought convenient that I should deal with all three
queries in one reply.
1. The William W referred to was the elder brother of Robert and of Richard,
the mayor of London, being the eldest son of another William (who was an MP in
1348, and died, I believe -but without a source- in 1350). He was himself an
MP in October 1377, and though twice married died sp, leaving his brother
Robert as his heir: see the Parliamentary biographies sv Robert W.
2. I agree with Will that the marriage settlement dated 1st September 1498
(Birmingham City Archives MS 3279/351989 ) made for Sir William Littleton and
his wife Marie establishes that Marie was the daughter of William Whittington
(d 1470) and his wife Elizabeth, sister of John Arundel, bishop of Coventry
and (later) Exeter. It was her brother John W who married first Elizabeth Croft
and secondly Elizabeth Milborne.
Thanks for correcting my error, Will
3. Sorry, I'm no expert on the Throckmortons. There is however a document in
the Shakespeare Birthplace archives of Throckmorton of Coughton which seems to
reflect a division of Thomas Whittington's estate among his co-heiresses:-
Manor of Upton Haselor
FILE - Deed - ref. DR5/1243 - date: 1 November 1588
<IMG SRC="http://www.a2a.org.uk/images/file.gif" WIDTH="32" HEIGHT="19" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="929">[from Scope and Content] Appointment by Roger Bodenham of
Rotherwas, Herefordshire esq. of Thomas Beale of the Inner Temple as attorney to
convey to Thomas Throckmorton esq. his share of the manor of Upton Haselor with
lands etc. belonging to the same.
MM
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
Please see:
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/byzant/byzant1.html
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/byzant/byzant1.html
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I was surprised to find that pretty much all the relevant evidence that's
been mentioned in this thread has already been discussed in the CP footnotes
on Earl Hubert's parentage [vii 133 note a] and Walter de Burgh's ancestry
[xii/2 171 note f]. (However, there does seem to be a bona fide addition in
the shape of the relationship between Hubert and William de Burgh, Lord of
Connaught, which is stated in the second footnote but not the first.)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that according to the footnote,
Blomefield [xi 152] says that "Burgh was held by the Crown, but was in 1201
given to Hubert". If this were true, it would obviously dispose of the
argument above in favour of Hubert being the elder son.
Another point (reflecting the fact that several Burghs are available in
Norfolk, as pointed out by CED) is that while Hubert's father according to
Blomefield, Reyner de Burgh, was "probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth", Ellis
(following Walter Rye) argued that the Burgh held by Hubert was probably the
one near Aylsham. This was based on a grant to him from King John of lands
in Aylsham, and the manor of Cawston nearby. Among other things, this might
imply that the Burgh held by Hubert was not the same Burgh his family took
its name from, or else that Blomefield was wrong about him belonging to the
same family as Reyner.
Finally, the CP footnote, like the new DNB, cites Nero E vii, f. 91 (the
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary) for the grant in which Hubert calls
his mother Alice. The author was aware that this contradicted Blomefield's
claim that Hubert's mother was Joan Punchard, and commented that "According
to Blomefield he had a grandmother Alice". (Perhaps this explains Douglas
Richardson's recollection that he had read of an alternative placement for
Alice, possibly in Blomefield.)
Chris Phillips
I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir.
I was surprised to find that pretty much all the relevant evidence that's
been mentioned in this thread has already been discussed in the CP footnotes
on Earl Hubert's parentage [vii 133 note a] and Walter de Burgh's ancestry
[xii/2 171 note f]. (However, there does seem to be a bona fide addition in
the shape of the relationship between Hubert and William de Burgh, Lord of
Connaught, which is stated in the second footnote but not the first.)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that according to the footnote,
Blomefield [xi 152] says that "Burgh was held by the Crown, but was in 1201
given to Hubert". If this were true, it would obviously dispose of the
argument above in favour of Hubert being the elder son.
Another point (reflecting the fact that several Burghs are available in
Norfolk, as pointed out by CED) is that while Hubert's father according to
Blomefield, Reyner de Burgh, was "probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth", Ellis
(following Walter Rye) argued that the Burgh held by Hubert was probably the
one near Aylsham. This was based on a grant to him from King John of lands
in Aylsham, and the manor of Cawston nearby. Among other things, this might
imply that the Burgh held by Hubert was not the same Burgh his family took
its name from, or else that Blomefield was wrong about him belonging to the
same family as Reyner.
Finally, the CP footnote, like the new DNB, cites Nero E vii, f. 91 (the
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary) for the grant in which Hubert calls
his mother Alice. The author was aware that this contradicted Blomefield's
claim that Hubert's mother was Joan Punchard, and commented that "According
to Blomefield he had a grandmother Alice". (Perhaps this explains Douglas
Richardson's recollection that he had read of an alternative placement for
Alice, possibly in Blomefield.)
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear Newsgroup ~
I believe the burial of Alice, wife of Earl Hubert de Burgh, is
mentioned in Blomfield's Norfolk in his account of Walsinghan, Norfolk.
I'm saying this purely from memory, and my recollection may be in
error. I saw this volume over ten years ago.
Regarding Earl Hubert's alleged Pouchard connection, I note that Earl
Hubert de Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, was dealing with
lands in Brunham, Norfolk in the period, 1255-1265 [see Bedingfield, A
Cartulary of Creake Abbey (1966): 127, 129]. If so, if there are no
identifiable descendants of Alice Pouchard, it is possible that Sir
John de Burgh may have been the heir and successor to Alice Pouchard's
grandson, Robert de Nerford. This might would explain how Sir John de
Burgh came to hold lands in Brunham, Norfolk.
I note that Robert de Nerford was living c. 1240, when he confirmed the
grants of his family to Creake Abbey in Creake, Brunham, Wreningham,
and Habeton, Norfolk. The evidence shows that Robert de Nerford's
great-great-grandfather, Sir William Pouchard, held lands in Brunham,
Norfolk. If Sir John de Burgh was heir to Robert de Nerford, they
would both presumaby be descendants of the Pouchard family. This would
not prove Blomfield's assertion that Sir John de Burgh's grandmother
was a Pouchard, only that Sir John de Burgh was descended in some
manner from Sir William Pouchard.
Lastly, I note that the Creake Abbey Cartulary indicates that the Prior
of Walsingham had lands in Brunham, Norfolk in 1245-1265 [see
Bedingfield, ibid., 129]. If so, it is possible that Earl Hubert de
Burgh who was a known benefactor to Walsingham was the person who
donated the lands in that parish to Walsingham Priory. It does not
appear that the cartulary of Walsingham Priory has ever been published.
I have copied below the information regarding the Walsingham Priory
Cartulary which I've found online.
Suffice to say, this matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/bl/mss/ner5.htm
MS British Library Cotton Nero E. vii.
ARTICLE:
FOLIATION:
CONTENT:
Cartulary of the Augustinian canons' priory of Walsingham (co. Norf.).
Arranged topographically in sections, by deaneries; there are copies of
a few royal, papal and episcopal charters in the Walsingham section,
and (ff. 147v-152v) copies of a few inquisitions and lawsuits as well
of the taxation assessment of the priory's temporalities in 1291.
A 15th-century index (ff. 139-146) includes the contents of some leaves
(ff. 63-82 in the medieval foliation) that are missing from between the
present ff. 68 and 69, of which two (ff. 77, 78 in the medieval
foliation) are now Oxford, Bodl., MS Top. Norf. b. 1 (S.C. 31413;
apparently detached by Jan. 1673).
Latin, with a little Anglo-Norman.
ORIGIN:
DATING: Late 13th century, not before 1293; with many later additions.
PROVENANCE:
Belonged to Samuel Roper the younger (d. 1678), by whom it was given to
the Cotton Library in 1670: on f. 1 there is a drawing of his arms
(quarterly, 1. Roper, 2. Musard, 3. Furneaux, 4. Chevercourt), with
mantling, crest and motto ("Lux Anglis crux Francis"), and also an
inscription in Sir William Dugdale's hand ("Ex dono Samuelis Roper de
Heanoure in com. Derb. ar. ao 1670"). The name "Thomas Rooper", in a
mid 16th-century hand, occurs among the pen- trials etc. on f. 180.
CODICOLOGY:
To judge from the 15th-century foliation, leaves are wanting after the
present ff. 47 (1 leaf), 68 (20 leaves), 73 (1 leaf), 88 (1 leaf), 93
(10 leaves), 94 or 95 (1 leaf), 118 (10 leaves), and 137 (2 leaves).
COPIES:
ILLUSTRATED:
PRINTED:
* J. Lee-Warner, "Petition of the Prior and Canons of Walsingham,
Norfolk, to Elizabeth, Lady of Clare. Circa A.D. 1345", Archaeol. Jnl.,
xxvi (1869), pp. 166-73, at 169-73. [From Nero E. vii, ff. 159v-160; in
Anglo-Norman.]
LITERATURE:
* Dugdale, Monasticon, new edn., VI, pt. 1, p. 72 note b. [List of
places under which the charters are arranged.]
* Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 988.
EXHIBITED:
AUTHOR: Dr Nigel Ramsay
DATE: 22-7-98
SORTCODE: A-COTNER-E7
I believe the burial of Alice, wife of Earl Hubert de Burgh, is
mentioned in Blomfield's Norfolk in his account of Walsinghan, Norfolk.
I'm saying this purely from memory, and my recollection may be in
error. I saw this volume over ten years ago.
Regarding Earl Hubert's alleged Pouchard connection, I note that Earl
Hubert de Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, was dealing with
lands in Brunham, Norfolk in the period, 1255-1265 [see Bedingfield, A
Cartulary of Creake Abbey (1966): 127, 129]. If so, if there are no
identifiable descendants of Alice Pouchard, it is possible that Sir
John de Burgh may have been the heir and successor to Alice Pouchard's
grandson, Robert de Nerford. This might would explain how Sir John de
Burgh came to hold lands in Brunham, Norfolk.
I note that Robert de Nerford was living c. 1240, when he confirmed the
grants of his family to Creake Abbey in Creake, Brunham, Wreningham,
and Habeton, Norfolk. The evidence shows that Robert de Nerford's
great-great-grandfather, Sir William Pouchard, held lands in Brunham,
Norfolk. If Sir John de Burgh was heir to Robert de Nerford, they
would both presumaby be descendants of the Pouchard family. This would
not prove Blomfield's assertion that Sir John de Burgh's grandmother
was a Pouchard, only that Sir John de Burgh was descended in some
manner from Sir William Pouchard.
Lastly, I note that the Creake Abbey Cartulary indicates that the Prior
of Walsingham had lands in Brunham, Norfolk in 1245-1265 [see
Bedingfield, ibid., 129]. If so, it is possible that Earl Hubert de
Burgh who was a known benefactor to Walsingham was the person who
donated the lands in that parish to Walsingham Priory. It does not
appear that the cartulary of Walsingham Priory has ever been published.
I have copied below the information regarding the Walsingham Priory
Cartulary which I've found online.
Suffice to say, this matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/bl/mss/ner5.htm
MS British Library Cotton Nero E. vii.
ARTICLE:
FOLIATION:
CONTENT:
Cartulary of the Augustinian canons' priory of Walsingham (co. Norf.).
Arranged topographically in sections, by deaneries; there are copies of
a few royal, papal and episcopal charters in the Walsingham section,
and (ff. 147v-152v) copies of a few inquisitions and lawsuits as well
of the taxation assessment of the priory's temporalities in 1291.
A 15th-century index (ff. 139-146) includes the contents of some leaves
(ff. 63-82 in the medieval foliation) that are missing from between the
present ff. 68 and 69, of which two (ff. 77, 78 in the medieval
foliation) are now Oxford, Bodl., MS Top. Norf. b. 1 (S.C. 31413;
apparently detached by Jan. 1673).
Latin, with a little Anglo-Norman.
ORIGIN:
DATING: Late 13th century, not before 1293; with many later additions.
PROVENANCE:
Belonged to Samuel Roper the younger (d. 1678), by whom it was given to
the Cotton Library in 1670: on f. 1 there is a drawing of his arms
(quarterly, 1. Roper, 2. Musard, 3. Furneaux, 4. Chevercourt), with
mantling, crest and motto ("Lux Anglis crux Francis"), and also an
inscription in Sir William Dugdale's hand ("Ex dono Samuelis Roper de
Heanoure in com. Derb. ar. ao 1670"). The name "Thomas Rooper", in a
mid 16th-century hand, occurs among the pen- trials etc. on f. 180.
CODICOLOGY:
To judge from the 15th-century foliation, leaves are wanting after the
present ff. 47 (1 leaf), 68 (20 leaves), 73 (1 leaf), 88 (1 leaf), 93
(10 leaves), 94 or 95 (1 leaf), 118 (10 leaves), and 137 (2 leaves).
COPIES:
ILLUSTRATED:
PRINTED:
* J. Lee-Warner, "Petition of the Prior and Canons of Walsingham,
Norfolk, to Elizabeth, Lady of Clare. Circa A.D. 1345", Archaeol. Jnl.,
xxvi (1869), pp. 166-73, at 169-73. [From Nero E. vii, ff. 159v-160; in
Anglo-Norman.]
LITERATURE:
* Dugdale, Monasticon, new edn., VI, pt. 1, p. 72 note b. [List of
places under which the charters are arranged.]
* Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 988.
EXHIBITED:
AUTHOR: Dr Nigel Ramsay
DATE: 22-7-98
SORTCODE: A-COTNER-E7
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
If so, it's curious that CP didn't refer to this when discussing the
discrepancy between the Walsingham cartulary and Blomefield's version of
Hubert's parentage. I suppose we'll just have to wait until someone can
check what Blomefield says.
Incidentally, I'm still curious to know whether you're arguing that Ellis
was wrong in saying that Hubert de Burgh was the brother of William de
Burgh, Lord of Connaught, and if so what alternative interpretation you have
in mind for the reference to Hubert as the uncle of Richard, son of William
de Burgh.
Chris Phillips
I believe the burial of Alice, wife of Earl Hubert de Burgh, is
mentioned in Blomfield's Norfolk in his account of Walsinghan, Norfolk.
I'm saying this purely from memory, and my recollection may be in
error. I saw this volume over ten years ago.
If so, it's curious that CP didn't refer to this when discussing the
discrepancy between the Walsingham cartulary and Blomefield's version of
Hubert's parentage. I suppose we'll just have to wait until someone can
check what Blomefield says.
Incidentally, I'm still curious to know whether you're arguing that Ellis
was wrong in saying that Hubert de Burgh was the brother of William de
Burgh, Lord of Connaught, and if so what alternative interpretation you have
in mind for the reference to Hubert as the uncle of Richard, son of William
de Burgh.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
In a message dated 1/4/06 6:33:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< An interesting identification has been noted on this subject, in "A
New General Biographical Dictionary" by the Rev. Hugh James Rose (1857).....
"His son, Richard de Burgo, by Isabel, natural daughter of Richard I., was
lord of Connaught and Trim, and was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland in
1227, where he died in 1242, after having built the castles of Galway and
Loughrea." [1]
<snip>
The source for this statement may or may not be reliable, but sounds too
detailed to have been fabricated (at least, by Rev. Rose himself).
<snip>
This would also work with the Irish text from the Annals of the Four
Masters, cited by Douglas, late though the current version may be, which
states of Richard de Burgh, ' Richard 'the old' (whose mother was daughter of the
Saxon king) ' ["Riocaird mhoir (ingen righ Saxan a mathair)"]. >>
I doubt however, the independence of these two quotes. I suggest that the
source of Rose's belief is, in the fact the Irish text cited by Douglas. So
therefore they don't support each other, they merely repeat each other.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< An interesting identification has been noted on this subject, in "A
New General Biographical Dictionary" by the Rev. Hugh James Rose (1857).....
"His son, Richard de Burgo, by Isabel, natural daughter of Richard I., was
lord of Connaught and Trim, and was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland in
1227, where he died in 1242, after having built the castles of Galway and
Loughrea." [1]
<snip>
The source for this statement may or may not be reliable, but sounds too
detailed to have been fabricated (at least, by Rev. Rose himself).
<snip>
This would also work with the Irish text from the Annals of the Four
Masters, cited by Douglas, late though the current version may be, which
states of Richard de Burgh, ' Richard 'the old' (whose mother was daughter of the
Saxon king) ' ["Riocaird mhoir (ingen righ Saxan a mathair)"]. >>
I doubt however, the independence of these two quotes. I suggest that the
source of Rose's belief is, in the fact the Irish text cited by Douglas. So
therefore they don't support each other, they merely repeat each other.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
Dear John and Douglas,
Approximately what date did William de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King" was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it appears to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Approximately what date did William de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King" was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it appears to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
On: Hubert de Burgh
One might consider that one of the criticisms leveled at John by the
nobility was his employment and promotion of men of lower birth (thus
dependent on him). If Hubert made himself useful, he might well expect
to receive the hand of a great heiress -- such heiresses were wards of
the king, and their marriages (which did not cost the king anything
much) were major kinds of payment given loyal subjects. William
Marshall, whose family was also unknown, was a poor knight who made
himself useful to Henry II and Richard I -- and in return was given the
hand of the heiress of Pembroke, as well as the Marshalship that gave
him a surname. William d'Aubigny was an unknown (French) knight who
made himself useful to Henry I, married his widow, and received Arundel
castle (and earldom) from the usurper, King Stephen. Happened all the
time.
As for Hubert's royal second marriage, the princess was a hostage in
England, and Hubert her keeper. They became intimate, and Scots royalty
was unimportant enough at the time that the English kings could toss
their daughters around at will.
No adult illegitimate daughter of either Henry II or Richard I is
mentioned in any source -- in marked contrast to those of Henry I and
John.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
One might consider that one of the criticisms leveled at John by the
nobility was his employment and promotion of men of lower birth (thus
dependent on him). If Hubert made himself useful, he might well expect
to receive the hand of a great heiress -- such heiresses were wards of
the king, and their marriages (which did not cost the king anything
much) were major kinds of payment given loyal subjects. William
Marshall, whose family was also unknown, was a poor knight who made
himself useful to Henry II and Richard I -- and in return was given the
hand of the heiress of Pembroke, as well as the Marshalship that gave
him a surname. William d'Aubigny was an unknown (French) knight who
made himself useful to Henry I, married his widow, and received Arundel
castle (and earldom) from the usurper, King Stephen. Happened all the
time.
As for Hubert's royal second marriage, the princess was a hostage in
England, and Hubert her keeper. They became intimate, and Scots royalty
was unimportant enough at the time that the English kings could toss
their daughters around at will.
No adult illegitimate daughter of either Henry II or Richard I is
mentioned in any source -- in marked contrast to those of Henry I and
John.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
In a message dated 1/5/06 7:15:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:
<< One-- Hubert de Burgh's earldom was a consequence of his marriage to,
Margaret, the daughter of William the Lion, king of Scotland. The
grant of the earldom had a limitation on its remainder, the grant was
to Hubert and his heirs of the body of Margaret. >>
But even before this, his second wife Isabella de Clare was the ex and first
wife (annuled) of John the King of England.
Isabella was a great-granddaughter of Henry I and her father was Earl of
Gloucester.
So already by this marriage, Hubert, is marrying pretty far up the ladder.
In contrast, his first wife, seems like a nobody
Just in contrast, mind
you.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< One-- Hubert de Burgh's earldom was a consequence of his marriage to,
Margaret, the daughter of William the Lion, king of Scotland. The
grant of the earldom had a limitation on its remainder, the grant was
to Hubert and his heirs of the body of Margaret. >>
But even before this, his second wife Isabella de Clare was the ex and first
wife (annuled) of John the King of England.
Isabella was a great-granddaughter of Henry I and her father was Earl of
Gloucester.
So already by this marriage, Hubert, is marrying pretty far up the ladder.
In contrast, his first wife, seems like a nobody
you.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
In a message dated 1/5/06 4:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Approximately what date did William
de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King" was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it appears
to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father. >>
An additional assertion could be that, although Richard's only other known
bastard is acknowledged in at least one source, no mention is made of any
daughter in any source I'm aware of, although these would have been the only two
children Richard ever had.
Henry II on the other hand, had at least ten children, including at least one
bastard, and evidently several mistresses.
Chronology would be tight for a daughter of Richard I to have married a
Lord *in* Ireland (added emphasis) Perhaps a chronology of Richard's whereabouts
would show that it's more likely that Henry was her father.
Richard did not rule England *from* England which is another potential nail
in this coffin. Why would a father, albeit illegitimate, allow his daughter to
marry so far away from the place he loved (and lived at) the most? The
distance from London to Ireland isn't nearly as far. Also why use the marriage to
cement a tie to an obscure Irish chieftain instead of a more useful French one
? Esp. as the French king was a little pissed off that Richard wouldn't
follow through on his marriage to Alice and in fact has the marriage annuled in
Mar 1190. This had to be *after* Isabella was already married. Alice was the
half-sister of the current French King, so why not marry Isabella off to the
kings little son to mollify him? or even one of his half-nephews like Henry
1166- later King of Jerusalem?
However, allowing Isabella to be a daughter of Henry II makes perfect sense.
Marrying her to a newly created lord in Ireland would strengthen ties to that
country which were basically non-existent. None of Henry's other children
married into Ireland. Why not throw them a bone and let them has Isabella ?
And then there is the question of Richard's ability to father a child in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or many he was homosexual,
but the whole series of issues makes it more likely her father would be Henry
II.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Approximately what date did William
de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King" was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it appears
to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father. >>
An additional assertion could be that, although Richard's only other known
bastard is acknowledged in at least one source, no mention is made of any
daughter in any source I'm aware of, although these would have been the only two
children Richard ever had.
Henry II on the other hand, had at least ten children, including at least one
bastard, and evidently several mistresses.
Chronology would be tight for a daughter of Richard I to have married a
Lord *in* Ireland (added emphasis) Perhaps a chronology of Richard's whereabouts
would show that it's more likely that Henry was her father.
Richard did not rule England *from* England which is another potential nail
in this coffin. Why would a father, albeit illegitimate, allow his daughter to
marry so far away from the place he loved (and lived at) the most? The
distance from London to Ireland isn't nearly as far. Also why use the marriage to
cement a tie to an obscure Irish chieftain instead of a more useful French one
? Esp. as the French king was a little pissed off that Richard wouldn't
follow through on his marriage to Alice and in fact has the marriage annuled in
Mar 1190. This had to be *after* Isabella was already married. Alice was the
half-sister of the current French King, so why not marry Isabella off to the
kings little son to mollify him? or even one of his half-nephews like Henry
1166- later King of Jerusalem?
However, allowing Isabella to be a daughter of Henry II makes perfect sense.
Marrying her to a newly created lord in Ireland would strengthen ties to that
country which were basically non-existent. None of Henry's other children
married into Ireland. Why not throw them a bone and let them has Isabella ?
And then there is the question of Richard's ability to father a child in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or many he was homosexual,
but the whole series of issues makes it more likely her father would be Henry
II.
Will Johnson
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Daughter of the English King: Wife of William de Burgh (
"And then there is the question of Richard's ability to father a child
in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in
general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or maybe] he was
homosexual."
A man's being homosexual is no an impediment to his fathering children.
Though history, we have abundant examples of homosexual fathers with
numerous children: Edward II, Lord Hervey, Edward II, the 7th Earl
Beauchamp, to name a few. And in our day, how 'bout "Brokeback
Mountain", not to mention so many people one knows?!
Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Approximately what date did
William
de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King"
was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being
before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it
appears
to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father. >>
An additional assertion could be that, although Richard's only other
known
bastard is acknowledged in at least one source, no mention is made of
any
daughter in any source I'm aware of, although these would have been the
only two
children Richard ever had.
Henry II on the other hand, had at least ten children, including at
least one
bastard, and evidently several mistresses.
Chronology would be tight for a daughter of Richard I to have married
a
Lord *in* Ireland (added emphasis) Perhaps a chronology of Richard's
whereabouts
would show that it's more likely that Henry was her father.
Richard did not rule England *from* England which is another potential
nail
in this coffin. Why would a father, albeit illegitimate, allow his
daughter to
marry so far away from the place he loved (and lived at) the most? The
distance from London to Ireland isn't nearly as far. Also why use the
marriage to
cement a tie to an obscure Irish chieftain instead of a more useful
French one
? Esp. as the French king was a little pissed off that Richard
wouldn't
follow through on his marriage to Alice and in fact has the marriage
annuled in
Mar 1190. This had to be *after* Isabella was already married. Alice
was the
half-sister of the current French King, so why not marry Isabella off
to the
kings little son to mollify him? or even one of his half-nephews like
Henry
1166- later King of Jerusalem?
However, allowing Isabella to be a daughter of Henry II makes perfect
sense.
Marrying her to a newly created lord in Ireland would strengthen ties
to that
country which were basically non-existent. None of Henry's other
children
married into Ireland. Why not throw them a bone and let them has
Isabella ?
And then there is the question of Richard's ability to father a child
in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in
general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or many he was
homosexual,
but the whole series of issues makes it more likely her father would be
Henry
II.
Will Johnson
in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in
general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or maybe] he was
homosexual."
A man's being homosexual is no an impediment to his fathering children.
Though history, we have abundant examples of homosexual fathers with
numerous children: Edward II, Lord Hervey, Edward II, the 7th Earl
Beauchamp, to name a few. And in our day, how 'bout "Brokeback
Mountain", not to mention so many people one knows?!
Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
WJhonson@aol.com> 01/05/06 05:32PM
In a message dated 1/5/06 4:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Approximately what date did
William
de
Burgh marry the daughter of the Saxon King ? Henry "the Young King"
was born
in 1155 and Richard I in 1157 who would preclude her birth being
before say
1170 to 1175 and her marriage to before say 1185. So, yes, Will it
appears
to
have been Henry II who would have had to have been her father. >>
An additional assertion could be that, although Richard's only other
known
bastard is acknowledged in at least one source, no mention is made of
any
daughter in any source I'm aware of, although these would have been the
only two
children Richard ever had.
Henry II on the other hand, had at least ten children, including at
least one
bastard, and evidently several mistresses.
Chronology would be tight for a daughter of Richard I to have married
a
Lord *in* Ireland (added emphasis) Perhaps a chronology of Richard's
whereabouts
would show that it's more likely that Henry was her father.
Richard did not rule England *from* England which is another potential
nail
in this coffin. Why would a father, albeit illegitimate, allow his
daughter to
marry so far away from the place he loved (and lived at) the most? The
distance from London to Ireland isn't nearly as far. Also why use the
marriage to
cement a tie to an obscure Irish chieftain instead of a more useful
French one
? Esp. as the French king was a little pissed off that Richard
wouldn't
follow through on his marriage to Alice and in fact has the marriage
annuled in
Mar 1190. This had to be *after* Isabella was already married. Alice
was the
half-sister of the current French King, so why not marry Isabella off
to the
kings little son to mollify him? or even one of his half-nephews like
Henry
1166- later King of Jerusalem?
However, allowing Isabella to be a daughter of Henry II makes perfect
sense.
Marrying her to a newly created lord in Ireland would strengthen ties
to that
country which were basically non-existent. None of Henry's other
children
married into Ireland. Why not throw them a bone and let them has
Isabella ?
And then there is the question of Richard's ability to father a child
in the
first place. He is not known for great affection toward women in
general.
Maybe he was turned-off by his father's many affairs, or many he was
homosexual,
but the whole series of issues makes it more likely her father would be
Henry
II.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)
The wikipedia entry for William de Burgh, Governor of Limerick, Lord of
Connaught claims that he was father to a Hubert de Burgh, Bishop of Limerick among
others and that this Hubert's great-granddaughter is who became the wife of
Richard, 2nd Earl of Ulster and thus this "Countess Margaret of Ulster" d 1304.
If that's not supportable, can someone post why not? And I or someone, can
use those details to update the wiki.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Connaught claims that he was father to a Hubert de Burgh, Bishop of Limerick among
others and that this Hubert's great-granddaughter is who became the wife of
Richard, 2nd Earl of Ulster and thus this "Countess Margaret of Ulster" d 1304.
If that's not supportable, can someone post why not? And I or someone, can
use those details to update the wiki.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
CED
Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Will:
The wikipedia entry refers to the wrong Hubert de Burgh. At one time
it was thought that Richard de Burgh's wife was Margaret, daughter of
John de Burgh of Lanvally, son of John de Burgh, son of Hubert de
Burgh, earl of Kent. John de Burgh did have a daughter, Margaret;
however, 1280 she in a nunnery (Chicksand). So, the idea that she was
the wife of Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster, was rejected. I would
point out that there is no record that she took vows. She could have
left Chicksand and married the earl, her distant cousin.
CED
The wikipedia entry for William de Burgh, Governor of Limerick, Lord of
Connaught claims that he was father to a Hubert de Burgh, Bishop of Limerick among
others and that this Hubert's great-granddaughter is who became the wife of
Richard, 2nd Earl of Ulster and thus this "Countess Margaret of Ulster" d 1304.
Will:
The wikipedia entry refers to the wrong Hubert de Burgh. At one time
it was thought that Richard de Burgh's wife was Margaret, daughter of
John de Burgh of Lanvally, son of John de Burgh, son of Hubert de
Burgh, earl of Kent. John de Burgh did have a daughter, Margaret;
however, 1280 she in a nunnery (Chicksand). So, the idea that she was
the wife of Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster, was rejected. I would
point out that there is no record that she took vows. She could have
left Chicksand and married the earl, her distant cousin.
CED
If that's not supportable, can someone post why not? And I or someone, can
use those details to update the wiki.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
This is what I have so far on the first five generations of descendents of
William Whittington of Pauntley
William Whittington married Elizabeth Arundell daughter of Rainford (aka
Humphrey) Arundell of Lanherne and his wife Jane Coleshull dau of Sir John
Coleshull, Knt of Tremadart.
William and Elizabeth had at least two children
1) Mary Whittington married Sir William Lyttleton of Frankley on 1 Sep 1499.
His first wife was Ellen Walshe widow of Thomas Fielding (or Feilding ?).
Sir William was son of Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. and Joan Burley dau of William
Burley, Speaker of the House of Commons
2) John Whittington married Elizabeth Croft dau of Richard Croft of Croft
Castle and Eleanor Cornwall dau of Edmund Cornwall and Elizabeth Barre
1.1 John Lyttleton b abt 1500 d 17 May 1532 of Frankley married Elizabeth
Talbot dau of Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton and Anne (Agnes) Paston dau of
William Paston and Anne Beaufort
1.1.1 Sir John Lyttleton b 1520 of Frankley
2.1 Thomas Whittington of Pauntley married Margery Needham dau of Sir William
Needham and Isabel Bromley dau of John Bromley of Badynton (1429-85)
2.1.1 Margaret Whittington of Pauntley married Thomas Throckmorton of Corse
son of William Throckmorton of Corse and Margaret Matthew
2.1.1.1 Anne Throckmorton married Sir John Tracy of Toddingham d 1591 son of
Henry Tracy of Toddingham and Elizabeth Brydges dau of John 1st Baron Chandos
of Sudeley (1491-1557) and Elizabeth Grey d 1559 dau of Edmund 9the Lord Grey
of Wilton
2.1.1.1.1 Mary Tracy b 18 May 1581 married Horatio Baron Vere of Tilbury
2.1.1.1.2 John Viscount Tracy married abt 1590 Anne Shirley dau of Thomas
Shirley of Wiston and Anne Kempe dau of Sit Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh and
Katherine Cheney
If anyone can add more descendents within the first five generations, please
let me know.
Will Johnson
William Whittington of Pauntley
William Whittington married Elizabeth Arundell daughter of Rainford (aka
Humphrey) Arundell of Lanherne and his wife Jane Coleshull dau of Sir John
Coleshull, Knt of Tremadart.
William and Elizabeth had at least two children
1) Mary Whittington married Sir William Lyttleton of Frankley on 1 Sep 1499.
His first wife was Ellen Walshe widow of Thomas Fielding (or Feilding ?).
Sir William was son of Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. and Joan Burley dau of William
Burley, Speaker of the House of Commons
2) John Whittington married Elizabeth Croft dau of Richard Croft of Croft
Castle and Eleanor Cornwall dau of Edmund Cornwall and Elizabeth Barre
1.1 John Lyttleton b abt 1500 d 17 May 1532 of Frankley married Elizabeth
Talbot dau of Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton and Anne (Agnes) Paston dau of
William Paston and Anne Beaufort
1.1.1 Sir John Lyttleton b 1520 of Frankley
2.1 Thomas Whittington of Pauntley married Margery Needham dau of Sir William
Needham and Isabel Bromley dau of John Bromley of Badynton (1429-85)
2.1.1 Margaret Whittington of Pauntley married Thomas Throckmorton of Corse
son of William Throckmorton of Corse and Margaret Matthew
2.1.1.1 Anne Throckmorton married Sir John Tracy of Toddingham d 1591 son of
Henry Tracy of Toddingham and Elizabeth Brydges dau of John 1st Baron Chandos
of Sudeley (1491-1557) and Elizabeth Grey d 1559 dau of Edmund 9the Lord Grey
of Wilton
2.1.1.1.1 Mary Tracy b 18 May 1581 married Horatio Baron Vere of Tilbury
2.1.1.1.2 John Viscount Tracy married abt 1590 Anne Shirley dau of Thomas
Shirley of Wiston and Anne Kempe dau of Sit Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh and
Katherine Cheney
If anyone can add more descendents within the first five generations, please
let me know.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
Dear Will,
I may have missed something (I have been pre-occupied with a project lately)
and I know that Gerald Paget at times is only an indication and not always
reliable.
In his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles we find
Q 115053 Sir Edmund Stradling1429-1461
Q 115054 Elizabeth, daughter of Renfrey Arundel of Tremodrat, by Jane,
daughter of Sir John Coleshill
we also find
Q 118425 William Lyttelton, of Frankley
Q 118426 Mary, daughter of William Whittington of Pauntley, by Dorothy,
daughter of Renfrey Arundel
You show the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth and Paget has her as
Dorothy and he gives a daughter Elizabeth but married to Sir Edmund
Stradling, or am I confusing generations in the Arundel(l) family?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
I may have missed something (I have been pre-occupied with a project lately)
and I know that Gerald Paget at times is only an indication and not always
reliable.
In his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles we find
Q 115053 Sir Edmund Stradling1429-1461
Q 115054 Elizabeth, daughter of Renfrey Arundel of Tremodrat, by Jane,
daughter of Sir John Coleshill
we also find
Q 118425 William Lyttelton, of Frankley
Q 118426 Mary, daughter of William Whittington of Pauntley, by Dorothy,
daughter of Renfrey Arundel
You show the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth and Paget has her as
Dorothy and he gives a daughter Elizabeth but married to Sir Edmund
Stradling, or am I confusing generations in the Arundel(l) family?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
This is what I have so far on the first five generations of descendents of
William Whittington of Pauntley
William Whittington married Elizabeth Arundell daughter of Rainford (aka
Humphrey) Arundell of Lanherne and his wife Jane Coleshull dau of Sir John
Coleshull, Knt of Tremadart.
William and Elizabeth had at least two children
1) Mary Whittington married Sir William Lyttleton of Frankley on 1 Sep
1499.
His first wife was Ellen Walshe widow of Thomas Fielding (or Feilding ?).
Sir William was son of Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. and Joan Burley dau of
William
Burley, Speaker of the House of Commons
2) John Whittington married Elizabeth Croft dau of Richard Croft of Croft
Castle and Eleanor Cornwall dau of Edmund Cornwall and Elizabeth Barre
1.1 John Lyttleton b abt 1500 d 17 May 1532 of Frankley married Elizabeth
Talbot dau of Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton and Anne (Agnes) Paston dau of
William Paston and Anne Beaufort
1.1.1 Sir John Lyttleton b 1520 of Frankley
2.1 Thomas Whittington of Pauntley married Margery Needham dau of Sir
William
Needham and Isabel Bromley dau of John Bromley of Badynton (1429-85)
2.1.1 Margaret Whittington of Pauntley married Thomas Throckmorton of
Corse
son of William Throckmorton of Corse and Margaret Matthew
2.1.1.1 Anne Throckmorton married Sir John Tracy of Toddingham d 1591 son
of
Henry Tracy of Toddingham and Elizabeth Brydges dau of John 1st Baron
Chandos
of Sudeley (1491-1557) and Elizabeth Grey d 1559 dau of Edmund 9the Lord
Grey
of Wilton
2.1.1.1.1 Mary Tracy b 18 May 1581 married Horatio Baron Vere of Tilbury
2.1.1.1.2 John Viscount Tracy married abt 1590 Anne Shirley dau of Thomas
Shirley of Wiston and Anne Kempe dau of Sit Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh and
Katherine Cheney
If anyone can add more descendents within the first five generations,
please
let me know.
Will Johnson
-
John Higgins
Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
There's a note in the Gen-Med archives from Louise Staley in June 2004 that
sheds some light on the Arundells in question. It appears that Sir Renfrey
Arundell and his wife Joan Coleshull had TWO daughters named Elizabeth. The
elder Elizabeth is said to have mar. (1) Sir Edward Stradling and (2)
William Lygon. The younger Elizabeth (who is occasionally called Dorothy in
pedigrees) is said to have mar. (1) William Whittington and (2) Nicolas
Brome.
However, Louise's note gives dates for the Elizabeth wife of Sir Edward
Stradling which are actually those of a later Elizabeth (dau. of Sir Thomas
and Catherine Dinham) who also mar. a later Sir Edward Stradling. There are
other notes in the archives which may clarify (or confuse) this picture
further. And it's not clear what Louise's sources were for the two
Elizabeths.
The usual pedigrees for Arundell (in Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall and
Lawson's Catholic Families) show only the second Elizabeth and her
marriages. And I've seen at least one genealogy which indicates (based on a
marriage settlement) that there was ONE Elizabeth with four husbands:
Stradling, Lygon, Whittington, and Brome. I wonder about this scenario....
FWIW, whether there was one Elizabeth or two, all of the marriages except
the Lygon one lead eventually, inter alia, to Prince William of Wales.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
sheds some light on the Arundells in question. It appears that Sir Renfrey
Arundell and his wife Joan Coleshull had TWO daughters named Elizabeth. The
elder Elizabeth is said to have mar. (1) Sir Edward Stradling and (2)
William Lygon. The younger Elizabeth (who is occasionally called Dorothy in
pedigrees) is said to have mar. (1) William Whittington and (2) Nicolas
Brome.
However, Louise's note gives dates for the Elizabeth wife of Sir Edward
Stradling which are actually those of a later Elizabeth (dau. of Sir Thomas
and Catherine Dinham) who also mar. a later Sir Edward Stradling. There are
other notes in the archives which may clarify (or confuse) this picture
further. And it's not clear what Louise's sources were for the two
Elizabeths.
The usual pedigrees for Arundell (in Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall and
Lawson's Catholic Families) show only the second Elizabeth and her
marriages. And I've seen at least one genealogy which indicates (based on a
marriage settlement) that there was ONE Elizabeth with four husbands:
Stradling, Lygon, Whittington, and Brome. I wonder about this scenario....
FWIW, whether there was one Elizabeth or two, all of the marriages except
the Lygon one lead eventually, inter alia, to Prince William of Wales.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
Dear Will,
I may have missed something (I have been pre-occupied with a project
lately)
and I know that Gerald Paget at times is only an indication and not always
reliable.
In his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles we find
Q 115053 Sir Edmund Stradling1429-1461
Q 115054 Elizabeth, daughter of Renfrey Arundel of Tremodrat, by Jane,
daughter of Sir John Coleshill
we also find
Q 118425 William Lyttelton, of Frankley
Q 118426 Mary, daughter of William Whittington of Pauntley, by Dorothy,
daughter of Renfrey Arundel
You show the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth and Paget has her as
Dorothy and he gives a daughter Elizabeth but married to Sir Edmund
Stradling, or am I confusing generations in the Arundel(l) family?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
This is what I have so far on the first five generations of descendents
of
William Whittington of Pauntley
William Whittington married Elizabeth Arundell daughter of Rainford (aka
Humphrey) Arundell of Lanherne and his wife Jane Coleshull dau of Sir
John
Coleshull, Knt of Tremadart.
William and Elizabeth had at least two children
1) Mary Whittington married Sir William Lyttleton of Frankley on 1 Sep
1499.
His first wife was Ellen Walshe widow of Thomas Fielding (or Feilding
?).
Sir William was son of Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. and Joan Burley dau of
William
Burley, Speaker of the House of Commons
2) John Whittington married Elizabeth Croft dau of Richard Croft of
Croft
Castle and Eleanor Cornwall dau of Edmund Cornwall and Elizabeth Barre
1.1 John Lyttleton b abt 1500 d 17 May 1532 of Frankley married
Elizabeth
Talbot dau of Sir Gilbert Talbot of Grafton and Anne (Agnes) Paston dau
of
William Paston and Anne Beaufort
1.1.1 Sir John Lyttleton b 1520 of Frankley
2.1 Thomas Whittington of Pauntley married Margery Needham dau of Sir
William
Needham and Isabel Bromley dau of John Bromley of Badynton (1429-85)
2.1.1 Margaret Whittington of Pauntley married Thomas Throckmorton of
Corse
son of William Throckmorton of Corse and Margaret Matthew
2.1.1.1 Anne Throckmorton married Sir John Tracy of Toddingham d 1591
son
of
Henry Tracy of Toddingham and Elizabeth Brydges dau of John 1st Baron
Chandos
of Sudeley (1491-1557) and Elizabeth Grey d 1559 dau of Edmund 9the Lord
Grey
of Wilton
2.1.1.1.1 Mary Tracy b 18 May 1581 married Horatio Baron Vere of Tilbury
2.1.1.1.2 John Viscount Tracy married abt 1590 Anne Shirley dau of
Thomas
Shirley of Wiston and Anne Kempe dau of Sit Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh
and
Katherine Cheney
If anyone can add more descendents within the first five generations,
please
let me know.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
In a message dated 1/5/2006 8:38:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Q 118425 William Lyttelton, of Frankley
Q 118426 Mary, daughter of William Whittington of Pauntley, by Dorothy,
daughter of Renfrey Arundel
You show the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth and Paget has her as
Dorothy and he gives a daughter Elizabeth but married to Sir Edmund
Stradling, or am I confusing generations in the Arundel(l) family?
Leo
The identification of the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth Arundel
comes from this primary document
Birmingham City Archives: Lyttleton of Hagley Hall
Lyttleton family (Viscount Cobham) of Frankley, later of Hagley Hall
Catalogue Ref. MS 3279
Creator(s): Lyttleton family, Viscounts Cobham of Stourbridge, Worcestershire
CHARTERS
FILE - Indenture between the Rt. Rev. Father in God, John Arundell,
Bishop of Covyntre and Lychefeld [Coventry and Lichfield] and Sir William
Littelton, knt. [of Frankley] being a settlement on the marriage of the said Sir
William and Marie Whityngton, daughter of William Whityngton late of Pauntley
[co. Glouc.] esq., deceased of Elizabeth his wife, which Elizabeth was sister to
the said Bishop 1 Sept. 14 Hen. VII - ref. MS 3279/351989 - date: [1498]
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Q 118425 William Lyttelton, of Frankley
Q 118426 Mary, daughter of William Whittington of Pauntley, by Dorothy,
daughter of Renfrey Arundel
You show the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth and Paget has her as
Dorothy and he gives a daughter Elizabeth but married to Sir Edmund
Stradling, or am I confusing generations in the Arundel(l) family?
Leo
The identification of the wife of William Whittington as Elizabeth Arundel
comes from this primary document
Birmingham City Archives: Lyttleton of Hagley Hall
Lyttleton family (Viscount Cobham) of Frankley, later of Hagley Hall
Catalogue Ref. MS 3279
Creator(s): Lyttleton family, Viscounts Cobham of Stourbridge, Worcestershire
CHARTERS
FILE - Indenture between the Rt. Rev. Father in God, John Arundell,
Bishop of Covyntre and Lychefeld [Coventry and Lichfield] and Sir William
Littelton, knt. [of Frankley] being a settlement on the marriage of the said Sir
William and Marie Whityngton, daughter of William Whityngton late of Pauntley
[co. Glouc.] esq., deceased of Elizabeth his wife, which Elizabeth was sister to
the said Bishop 1 Sept. 14 Hen. VII - ref. MS 3279/351989 - date: [1498]
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Thomas le Despenser
Friday, 6 January, 2006
Dear Todd, Clive, et al.,
I am currently reviewing the extracts provided (for which my
thanks, Clive), and plan to be back to the list in short order.
As to the name " Recuare ", I'd mentioned that this is most
unlikely to be a version (corrupt or otherwise) of Rohese/Rohais.
The closest similar name I can come up with, interestingly, is
"Richwara" or "Richgard" (rendered as "Richgardis"), which might
lead one to guess at a continental (German, possibly Flemish)
connection.
One possibility presents itself: Henry de Longchamp, of Wilton
(d. 1212) and his brother William de Longchamp (Bishop of Ely and
Justiciar of England, d. 1196) had a sister Richeut (see below). In
addition to a possible equation of 'Richeut' to 'Recuare' (if
'Richeut' is a rendering of 'Richward' or 'Richgard'), there is no
real geographical problem with such a link. I further note the
following:
1. Richeut's father was Hugh de Longchamp, who could then be
the namesake of Thomas le Despenser's son Hugh (first of the
long line of that name). Further, Thomas' younger son Henry
may have been named for Richeut's brother Henry, abbot of
Crowland.
2. The chronology is a reasonable fit.
3. The rise of the first Hugh le Despenser to greater prominence
in and outside Leicestershire would be a bit more
understandable.
This may also be the source of the long-theorised link (based
in large part on heraldic evidence) of the Despensers to the
Lacys. As I note below, it is noted in the Dictionary of National
Biography re: Bishop William de Longchamp that ' His mother
was probably a Lacy ' [DNB 111-112, cites Liber Niger. Scacc. ed.
Hearns, p. 155]. If Eve, the Bishop's mother, was a Lacy, and Thomas
le Despenser's wife 'Recuare' was in fact her daughter, the Lacy
link would be identified - although placing Eve in the Lacy pedigree
would be the next step.
Any and all relevant documentation, comment and criticism is
welcome, as always.
Cheers,
John *
1 Hugh de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1165[1]
Father: Hugh de Longchamp (-<1155)
of Wilton, co. Hereford[1]
' Hugo de Longocampo ', witness to a charter of Walter fitz Miles,
earl of Hereford to the canons of Llanthony Secunda (dated 25 Dec
1143 - 16 Apr 1148) [Med. Pros. 18:80-81[2]]
had a confirmation of the manor of Wilton, 1155 [2 Hen. II] - Dugdale,
The Baronage of England, pp. 593-594 ['Longcamp'], citing
Rot.Pip.2 H. 2. Heref.[1]
[he allegedly d. bef 1165 acc. to Dugdale - his son Henry then holding
Wilton[1]]
see also Yearbook entries cited by Douglas Richardson
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:73-83[2]]
Spouse: Eve [POSSIBLY - de Lacy ? See discussion above]
Children: Henry (-1212)
William (-1196)
Osbert
Stephen
Henry (-1236)
Richeut
Maud
1.1 Henry de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1212[1],[3]
of Wilton, co. Hereford
Sheriff of Hereford, 1190-1191
Sheriff of Worcestershire 1195-1197[1]
his father Hugh died,
' To whom succeeded Henry de Longcamp, who holding <+> Wiltone in
12 H. 2. by the Service of one Knights Fee, was Sheriff <d> of
Herefordshire in 2 R. I. So likewise in <e> 3 R. I. And in 6 R. I.
attended <f> the King in his Expedition into Normandy. In 7 R. I.
this Henry was Sheriff <g> of Worcestershire; also in 8 and 9 R.
I. And in 6 Joh. obtain'd another Confirmation from that King, of
the before-specified Lordship of Wilton, with the Castle, to hold by
the Service of one Knights Fee <k> for which Grant he gave CCC Marks,
and a Courser, price xx Marks, besides two Palfreys.
This Henry married <l> Maude the Sister of William de Cantilupe;
and died <m> in 13 Joh. Whereupon the said William gave <n> five
hundred Marks, and five Palfreys, for the Wardship and Marriage of his
Heir, viz. Henry;...'[ Dugdale, The Baronage of England, pp.
593-594 ['Longcamp'], to which the following footnotes:
' <+> Lib.rub. in Scar. sub tit. Heref.
<d> Rot. Pip. de iisd. ann. Heref.,
<e> ditto.
<f> Rot.Pip.6 R. I. Heref.
<g> Rot.Pip. de iisd. ann. Heref.
ditto.
Cart. 6 Joh. n. 35.
<k> Rot.Pip. 8 Joh. Heref.
<l> Rot.Pip. 13 Joh. Wirecestr.' [1]
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
Spouse: Maud de Cantilupe
Father: Walter de Cantelou
Children: Sir Henry (>1190-<1258), of Wilton, co. Hereford
William (->1260), of 'Suth-Warneburne', co. Hants.
Margery
1.2 William de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 31 Jan 1196, Poitiers[4]
Burial: Le Pin, Poitou[4]
Occ: Bishop of Ely, and Justiciar of England
Bishop of Ely
chancellor to King Richard
official under Geoffrey, son of the King [later archbishop
of York], for the archdeaconry of Rouen.
left Geoffrey, entered the service of Richard (as duke of Aquitaine),
chancellor for the duchy of Aquitaine, - 1189
chancellor of England on the accession of Richard, 1189
consecrated bishop of Ely, 31 Dec 1189
Chief Justiciar of England (together with Hugh Pudsey, bishop of Durham)
during Richard's absence in France, Dec. 1189 - 1190
commissioned as papal legate by Pope Clement III, 5 June 1190
Justiciar of England during Richard's absence on Crusade
(with intervening deposition and excommmunication), 1190-1194
d. at Poitiers, 31 Jan 1196/7
' His mother was probably a Lacy ' [DNB 111-112,
cites Liber Niger. Scacc. ed. Hearns, p. 155]
cf. DNB 111-114[4]
David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
1.3 Osbert de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Sheriff of Yorkshire[3]
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
Remfrey, Wilton, p. 7[3]
1.4 Stephen de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfrey, Wilton, p. 7[3]
1.5 Henry de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1236[3]
Occ: abbot of Crowland
abbot of Crowland
cf. Remfry, p. 7 and note (31)[3]
1.6 Richeut de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfry, p. 7 and note (32)[3]
1.7 Maud de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfry p. 16[3]
Spouse: Walter de Cantelou
Father: Walter de Cantelou
1. William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms, "The Baronage of England,"
Tho. Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675
[reprint New York, 1977].
2. David Balfour, "The Origins of the Longchamp Family," Medieval
Prosopography, Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1997
(Vol. 18), pp. 73-92.
3. Paul Martin Remfry, "Wilton Castle: 1066 to 1644."
4. "William Longchamp [article]," Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford Univ. Press, p. 111-114: William Longchamp.
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Thomas was married to Rohese de Foix, daughter of Roger-Bernard de Foix and Cecily
(see thread on this subject of Jan 2005). Does anybody know of any other
documented evidence for this?
Dear Todd, Clive, et al.,
I am currently reviewing the extracts provided (for which my
thanks, Clive), and plan to be back to the list in short order.
As to the name " Recuare ", I'd mentioned that this is most
unlikely to be a version (corrupt or otherwise) of Rohese/Rohais.
The closest similar name I can come up with, interestingly, is
"Richwara" or "Richgard" (rendered as "Richgardis"), which might
lead one to guess at a continental (German, possibly Flemish)
connection.
One possibility presents itself: Henry de Longchamp, of Wilton
(d. 1212) and his brother William de Longchamp (Bishop of Ely and
Justiciar of England, d. 1196) had a sister Richeut (see below). In
addition to a possible equation of 'Richeut' to 'Recuare' (if
'Richeut' is a rendering of 'Richward' or 'Richgard'), there is no
real geographical problem with such a link. I further note the
following:
1. Richeut's father was Hugh de Longchamp, who could then be
the namesake of Thomas le Despenser's son Hugh (first of the
long line of that name). Further, Thomas' younger son Henry
may have been named for Richeut's brother Henry, abbot of
Crowland.
2. The chronology is a reasonable fit.
3. The rise of the first Hugh le Despenser to greater prominence
in and outside Leicestershire would be a bit more
understandable.
This may also be the source of the long-theorised link (based
in large part on heraldic evidence) of the Despensers to the
Lacys. As I note below, it is noted in the Dictionary of National
Biography re: Bishop William de Longchamp that ' His mother
was probably a Lacy ' [DNB 111-112, cites Liber Niger. Scacc. ed.
Hearns, p. 155]. If Eve, the Bishop's mother, was a Lacy, and Thomas
le Despenser's wife 'Recuare' was in fact her daughter, the Lacy
link would be identified - although placing Eve in the Lacy pedigree
would be the next step.
Any and all relevant documentation, comment and criticism is
welcome, as always.
Cheers,
John *
1 Hugh de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1165[1]
Father: Hugh de Longchamp (-<1155)
of Wilton, co. Hereford[1]
' Hugo de Longocampo ', witness to a charter of Walter fitz Miles,
earl of Hereford to the canons of Llanthony Secunda (dated 25 Dec
1143 - 16 Apr 1148) [Med. Pros. 18:80-81[2]]
had a confirmation of the manor of Wilton, 1155 [2 Hen. II] - Dugdale,
The Baronage of England, pp. 593-594 ['Longcamp'], citing
Rot.Pip.2 H. 2. Heref.[1]
[he allegedly d. bef 1165 acc. to Dugdale - his son Henry then holding
Wilton[1]]
see also Yearbook entries cited by Douglas Richardson
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:73-83[2]]
Spouse: Eve [POSSIBLY - de Lacy ? See discussion above]
Children: Henry (-1212)
William (-1196)
Osbert
Stephen
Henry (-1236)
Richeut
Maud
1.1 Henry de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1212[1],[3]
of Wilton, co. Hereford
Sheriff of Hereford, 1190-1191
Sheriff of Worcestershire 1195-1197[1]
his father Hugh died,
' To whom succeeded Henry de Longcamp, who holding <+> Wiltone in
12 H. 2. by the Service of one Knights Fee, was Sheriff <d> of
Herefordshire in 2 R. I. So likewise in <e> 3 R. I. And in 6 R. I.
attended <f> the King in his Expedition into Normandy. In 7 R. I.
this Henry was Sheriff <g> of Worcestershire; also in 8 and 9 R.
I. And in 6 Joh. obtain'd another Confirmation from that King, of
the before-specified Lordship of Wilton, with the Castle, to hold by
the Service of one Knights Fee <k> for which Grant he gave CCC Marks,
and a Courser, price xx Marks, besides two Palfreys.
This Henry married <l> Maude the Sister of William de Cantilupe;
and died <m> in 13 Joh. Whereupon the said William gave <n> five
hundred Marks, and five Palfreys, for the Wardship and Marriage of his
Heir, viz. Henry;...'[ Dugdale, The Baronage of England, pp.
593-594 ['Longcamp'], to which the following footnotes:
' <+> Lib.rub. in Scar. sub tit. Heref.
<d> Rot. Pip. de iisd. ann. Heref.,
<e> ditto.
<f> Rot.Pip.6 R. I. Heref.
<g> Rot.Pip. de iisd. ann. Heref.
ditto.
Cart. 6 Joh. n. 35.
<k> Rot.Pip. 8 Joh. Heref.
<l> Rot.Pip. 13 Joh. Wirecestr.' [1]
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
Spouse: Maud de Cantilupe
Father: Walter de Cantelou
Children: Sir Henry (>1190-<1258), of Wilton, co. Hereford
William (->1260), of 'Suth-Warneburne', co. Hants.
Margery
1.2 William de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 31 Jan 1196, Poitiers[4]
Burial: Le Pin, Poitou[4]
Occ: Bishop of Ely, and Justiciar of England
Bishop of Ely
chancellor to King Richard
official under Geoffrey, son of the King [later archbishop
of York], for the archdeaconry of Rouen.
left Geoffrey, entered the service of Richard (as duke of Aquitaine),
chancellor for the duchy of Aquitaine, - 1189
chancellor of England on the accession of Richard, 1189
consecrated bishop of Ely, 31 Dec 1189
Chief Justiciar of England (together with Hugh Pudsey, bishop of Durham)
during Richard's absence in France, Dec. 1189 - 1190
commissioned as papal legate by Pope Clement III, 5 June 1190
Justiciar of England during Richard's absence on Crusade
(with intervening deposition and excommmunication), 1190-1194
d. at Poitiers, 31 Jan 1196/7
' His mother was probably a Lacy ' [DNB 111-112,
cites Liber Niger. Scacc. ed. Hearns, p. 155]
cf. DNB 111-114[4]
David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
1.3 Osbert de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Sheriff of Yorkshire[3]
cf. David Balfour, 'Origins' [Med. Pros. 18:80[2]]
Remfrey, Wilton, p. 7[3]
1.4 Stephen de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfrey, Wilton, p. 7[3]
1.5 Henry de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1236[3]
Occ: abbot of Crowland
abbot of Crowland
cf. Remfry, p. 7 and note (31)[3]
1.6 Richeut de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfry, p. 7 and note (32)[3]
1.7 Maud de Longchamp
----------------------------------------
cf. Remfry p. 16[3]
Spouse: Walter de Cantelou
Father: Walter de Cantelou
1. William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms, "The Baronage of England,"
Tho. Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675
[reprint New York, 1977].
2. David Balfour, "The Origins of the Longchamp Family," Medieval
Prosopography, Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1997
(Vol. 18), pp. 73-92.
3. Paul Martin Remfry, "Wilton Castle: 1066 to 1644."
4. "William Longchamp [article]," Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford Univ. Press, p. 111-114: William Longchamp.
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Clive West wrote:
But maybe it's an incorrect transcription of Rohese, (Thomas had a
daughter of this name), in which case this gives support to the suggestion that
Thomas was married to Rohese de Foix, daughter of Roger-Bernard de Foix and Cecily
(see thread on this subject of Jan 2005). Does anybody know of any other
documented evidence for this?
Any other documentary evidence? I have yet to see any.
I just don't see this connection as a viable alternative. Sure, strange
things sometimes happen, but even were you to prove that Thomas married
a Rohaise, this would not support a Foix connection. The name Rohaise
would be out of place in Foix, while you would also have to come up with
an explanation how such a daughter of a Midi count would come to marry
an Englishman of local significance, if even that. This is a connection
that will take direct evidence to overcome my skepticism, not just that
Thomas married someone named Rohese.
taf
-
Peter Marrow
House sign to heraldry?
Dear All,
William Marowe of London, d. 1464, held much property in the city including
quays on the River Thames. By 1488 the wharf called Galey key was held in
conjunction with another property called 'le Maydenhede', and both were
then in the possession of Williams' son William and heirs. It lay opposite
Galey key on the north side of Thames Street, three doors along from the
eastern corner of Bear Lane in Petty Wales (Petywales, Petiwales). 'Le
Maydenhede' or Maidenhead was probably a brewhouse. W.F. Carter, in his
history of the family quite reasonably, in my view, speculates that a sign
showing a maiden's head would have been hung on the front of the brewhouse
building. The arms adopted by William Marowe seem to have been:
Azure a Fess between three maiden's heads couped Argent crined Or.
Carter espouses the notion that the maiden depicted was the virgin Mary as
the 'ground' is blue (azure) in the later arms, a colour invariably
associated with the blessed Virgin Mary. If this biblical connotation is
true, it was evidently lost on later Marrow armigers who emblazoned very
profane or impious and immodest ladies as charges on their shields.........
Does anyone know of the definite adoption of an heraldic charge from a
house sign?
best regards
Peter
William Marowe of London, d. 1464, held much property in the city including
quays on the River Thames. By 1488 the wharf called Galey key was held in
conjunction with another property called 'le Maydenhede', and both were
then in the possession of Williams' son William and heirs. It lay opposite
Galey key on the north side of Thames Street, three doors along from the
eastern corner of Bear Lane in Petty Wales (Petywales, Petiwales). 'Le
Maydenhede' or Maidenhead was probably a brewhouse. W.F. Carter, in his
history of the family quite reasonably, in my view, speculates that a sign
showing a maiden's head would have been hung on the front of the brewhouse
building. The arms adopted by William Marowe seem to have been:
Azure a Fess between three maiden's heads couped Argent crined Or.
Carter espouses the notion that the maiden depicted was the virgin Mary as
the 'ground' is blue (azure) in the later arms, a colour invariably
associated with the blessed Virgin Mary. If this biblical connotation is
true, it was evidently lost on later Marrow armigers who emblazoned very
profane or impious and immodest ladies as charges on their shields.........
Does anyone know of the definite adoption of an heraldic charge from a
house sign?
best regards
Peter
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: House sign to heraldry?
Totally out of context (apologies) there was this Jewish house in Germany
who had a shield in front of the house, they had painted it red and the
families surname derived from it Rothschild.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Marrow" <peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:18 AM
Subject: House sign to heraldry?
who had a shield in front of the house, they had painted it red and the
families surname derived from it Rothschild.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Marrow" <peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:18 AM
Subject: House sign to heraldry?
Dear All,
William Marowe of London, d. 1464, held much property in the city
including quays on the River Thames. By 1488 the wharf called Galey key
was held in conjunction with another property called 'le Maydenhede', and
both were then in the possession of Williams' son William and heirs. It
lay opposite Galey key on the north side of Thames Street, three doors
along from the eastern corner of Bear Lane in Petty Wales (Petywales,
Petiwales). 'Le Maydenhede' or Maidenhead was probably a brewhouse. W.F.
Carter, in his history of the family quite reasonably, in my view,
speculates that a sign showing a maiden's head would have been hung on the
front of the brewhouse building. The arms adopted by William Marowe seem
to have been:
Azure a Fess between three maiden's heads couped Argent crined Or.
Carter espouses the notion that the maiden depicted was the virgin Mary as
the 'ground' is blue (azure) in the later arms, a colour invariably
associated with the blessed Virgin Mary. If this biblical connotation is
true, it was evidently lost on later Marrow armigers who emblazoned very
profane or impious and immodest ladies as charges on their
shields.........
Does anyone know of the definite adoption of an heraldic charge from a
house sign?
best regards
Peter
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
In a message dated 1/6/06 12:07:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
atsarisborn@hotmail.com writes:
<< As for Hubert's royal second marriage, the princess was a hostage in
England, and Hubert her keeper. They became intimate, and Scots royalty
was unimportant enough at the time that the English kings could toss
their daughters around at will. >>
Do you mean third marriage ?
atsarisborn@hotmail.com writes:
<< As for Hubert's royal second marriage, the princess was a hostage in
England, and Hubert her keeper. They became intimate, and Scots royalty
was unimportant enough at the time that the English kings could toss
their daughters around at will. >>
Do you mean third marriage ?
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/6/06 6:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< According to the pedigree, Fulk de Oyry had three daughters and
co-heiresses, Alice, Ela, and Emytine, all of whom had issue. The daughter, Alice, in
turn had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de
Burgh, who was living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251]. Joan de Burgh's
representative in 1335 is further identified as her grandson, Robert Burgilioun [sic].
Elsewhere, I find that the individual who heads the pedigree, Fulk d'Oyry,
was living in 1227, and that his co-heirs in 1281 were Walter
le Burgyllon (then a minor), Peter de Goushill, and Simon le
Constable [see the online resource, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516:
Lincolnshire, at the following weblink:
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/lincs.html#Hol]. Thus, it would appear
that Earl Hubert de Burgh had no connection whatsoever with the family of Fulk
de Oyry, of Gedney, Lincolnshire, as alleged by Blomfield. >>
Given the name Ela d''Oyry and the fact that in 1281 one of the co-heirs was
Piers (Peter) de Goushill of Lincolnshire who married Ela de Camoys, this
should tell us something about Ela de Camoys ancestry shouldn't it?
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< According to the pedigree, Fulk de Oyry had three daughters and
co-heiresses, Alice, Ela, and Emytine, all of whom had issue. The daughter, Alice, in
turn had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de
Burgh, who was living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251]. Joan de Burgh's
representative in 1335 is further identified as her grandson, Robert Burgilioun [sic].
Elsewhere, I find that the individual who heads the pedigree, Fulk d'Oyry,
was living in 1227, and that his co-heirs in 1281 were Walter
le Burgyllon (then a minor), Peter de Goushill, and Simon le
Constable [see the online resource, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516:
Lincolnshire, at the following weblink:
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/lincs.html#Hol]. Thus, it would appear
that Earl Hubert de Burgh had no connection whatsoever with the family of Fulk
de Oyry, of Gedney, Lincolnshire, as alleged by Blomfield. >>
Given the name Ela d''Oyry and the fact that in 1281 one of the co-heirs was
Piers (Peter) de Goushill of Lincolnshire who married Ela de Camoys, this
should tell us something about Ela de Camoys ancestry shouldn't it?
Will Johnson
-
CED
Re: Hubert de Burgh
atsarisborn@hotmail.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Hubert's marriage to Margaret of Scotland (his 3rd marriage) occured in
1221, while Hubert, as justiciar, was de facto master of England,
before Henry III had the power to say yea or nay to anything.
Margaret had been scheduled to marry Henry III; however, at the Treaty
of Norham. everything got turned around: Margaret was given to Hubert
and a sister of Henry III was promised to Alexander, son of William the
Lion, king of the Scots. Her intended marriage to the boy king was the
reason Margaret was in England. Intended brides of boys in the royal
family were, by custom, expected to live in England until the marriage.
(Alice of France, the intended of Richard I is another example.)
This switch was in all probabilty engineered by Hubert for his own
benefit with the willing cooperation of the Scottish king. Which
raises another question: why would William the Lion let his daughter be
married to a nobody?
CED
On: Hubert de Burgh
One might consider that one of the criticisms leveled at John by the
nobility was his employment and promotion of men of lower birth (thus
dependent on him). If Hubert made himself useful, he might well expect
to receive the hand of a great heiress -- such heiresses were wards of
the king, and their marriages (which did not cost the king anything
much) were major kinds of payment given loyal subjects. William
Marshall, whose family was also unknown, was a poor knight who made
himself useful to Henry II and Richard I -- and in return was given the
hand of the heiress of Pembroke, as well as the Marshalship that gave
him a surname. William d'Aubigny was an unknown (French) knight who
made himself useful to Henry I, married his widow, and received Arundel
castle (and earldom) from the usurper, King Stephen. Happened all the
time.
As for Hubert's royal second marriage, the princess was a hostage in
England, and Hubert her keeper. They became intimate, and Scots royalty
was unimportant enough at the time that the English kings could toss
their daughters around at will.
To the Newsgroup:
Hubert's marriage to Margaret of Scotland (his 3rd marriage) occured in
1221, while Hubert, as justiciar, was de facto master of England,
before Henry III had the power to say yea or nay to anything.
Margaret had been scheduled to marry Henry III; however, at the Treaty
of Norham. everything got turned around: Margaret was given to Hubert
and a sister of Henry III was promised to Alexander, son of William the
Lion, king of the Scots. Her intended marriage to the boy king was the
reason Margaret was in England. Intended brides of boys in the royal
family were, by custom, expected to live in England until the marriage.
(Alice of France, the intended of Richard I is another example.)
This switch was in all probabilty engineered by Hubert for his own
benefit with the willing cooperation of the Scottish king. Which
raises another question: why would William the Lion let his daughter be
married to a nobody?
CED
No adult illegitimate daughter of either Henry II or Richard I is
mentioned in any source -- in marked contrast to those of Henry I and
John.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-
Paul K Davis
RE: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
I just recently looked at what appears to be the definitive article on this
woman, by W. H. Rudt de Collenberg, and saw her always referred to as "la
damsel de Chypre". My guess is that no record of her name has survived.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
woman, by W. H. Rudt de Collenberg, and saw her always referred to as "la
damsel de Chypre". My guess is that no record of her name has survived.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: Melisende <melisende@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/5/2006 1:06:30 AM
Subject: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
I am trying to discover the name of the daughter of Isaac Comnenus,
"Emperor of Cyprus".
Her name is only mentioned as "la damsel de Chypre" . I believe that
after she was captured by King Richard I she was entrusted into the
care of Berengaria of Navarre as a maid-servant (c.1191). And the only
other information that I have is that she was married to (c.1200) and
divorced from (c.1203) Count Raymond VI of Toulouse - she was his fifth
wife. And that she married a second time (c.1203) to Thierry of
Flanders.
Any suggestions as to where I should look would be much appreciated.
Mel
-
Paul K Davis
Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
She was quite important, but her name was not. Her importance was in her
presumable inheritance of Cyprus. (In a feudal society we often do not
know people's given names, male or female. Many lords are referred to as
"Essex", "Buckingham" etc.)
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
presumable inheritance of Cyprus. (In a feudal society we often do not
know people's given names, male or female. Many lords are referred to as
"Essex", "Buckingham" etc.)
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: <atsarisborn@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/6/2006 12:06:28 AM
Subject: Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
So the simple answer is no one knows her name.
She wasn't important.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
????? should it? How so? (Piers was son of Giles, son of Emecina
d'Oyry, sister of Ela.)
taf
Given the name Ela d''Oyry and the fact that in 1281 one of the co-heirs was
Piers (Peter) de Goushill of Lincolnshire who married Ela de Camoys, this
should tell us something about Ela de Camoys ancestry shouldn't it?
????? should it? How so? (Piers was son of Giles, son of Emecina
d'Oyry, sister of Ela.)
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/6/2006 6:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The daughter, Alice, in turn
had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251].
Are you saying here that Reyner de Burgh was living in 35 Henry III ?
If so, then I find it remarkable that a historian or antiquarian would
attempt to say that Reyner was the father of a man who was surely long dead
already, and after a long career.
How Reyner could be thrust backward two centuries without serious harm is
beyond me.
Perhaps Reyner and Joan really are the parents of *some* Hubert, just not
*the* Hubert?
Otherwise I cannot see how anyone could make such an outrageous mistake.
Perhaps there is more than one Alice Pouchard? The whole thing has now
achieved a new high-water mark for confusion.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The daughter, Alice, in turn
had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251].
Are you saying here that Reyner de Burgh was living in 35 Henry III ?
If so, then I find it remarkable that a historian or antiquarian would
attempt to say that Reyner was the father of a man who was surely long dead
already, and after a long career.
How Reyner could be thrust backward two centuries without serious harm is
beyond me.
Perhaps Reyner and Joan really are the parents of *some* Hubert, just not
*the* Hubert?
Otherwise I cannot see how anyone could make such an outrageous mistake.
Perhaps there is more than one Alice Pouchard? The whole thing has now
achieved a new high-water mark for confusion.
Will Johnson
-
John Parsons
Re: Elizabeth PLANTAGENET
Comments interspersed below.
The descendants of Elizabeth of Lancaster (Holand of Exeter) and Queen
Constance of Castile would have followed the issue of John of Gaunt's eldest
daughter Philippa, Queen of Portugal. In 1485 they would have included
Isabella of Castile, though she was not Philippa's representative in blood.
In 1485 the branch of the Holands descended from Elizabeth of Lancaster were
ineligible for the throne in virtue of the act of attainder passed against
Elizabeth's husband John Holand. He was executed after participating in a
conspiracy against her brother Henry IV. Elizabeth of Lancaster's young
children were innocent and Henry IV eventually restored the Exeter title and
estates to her son, but without reversing John Holand's attainder. Henry
thereby avoided making them serious claimants to the throne or rivals to his
descendants. The attainder had not been reversed by 1485.
The 1397 legitimation of John of Gaunt's Beaufort children did establish
them as potential heirs to the throne in English law. Henry IV personally
added to the Act of legitimation the famous words barring the legitimized
Beauforts from the royal dignity, but he did so on his own authority,
without the assent of Parliament. Henry IV's addition to the Act therefore
lacked permanent legal force and lapsed upon his death; neither Henry V nor
Henry VI made any move to re-instate it. Consequently in 1485 a claim to
the throne based on the Beaufort descent was lawful, though it remained
debatable: should the Beauforts be accepted as potential heirs to the
throne only *after* the descendants of John of Gaunt's legitimately born
children, or should male primogeniture be applied? In the former case, the
descendants of John Beaufort, first earl of Somerset--whose male
representative was indisputably Henry Tudor--would *follow* the descendants
of John of Gaunt's daughters Queen Philippa of Portugal and Queen Constance
of Castile (the issue of Elizabeth of Lancaster being still under attainder,
as above, and so incapable of claiming the throne).
There is one, slender, indication that the Beaufort claim was regarded as
senior to those of the descendants of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. Or at
least that the Beaufort claim was considered strong enough to be used as a
political weapon. When the duke of Suffolk was tried and convicted of
treason in 1450, one charge against him was that he had sought to marry his
eldest son to Margaret Beaufort, the Somerset heiress who was in Suffolk's
ward, "pretending her to be next heir to the crown of England." While
Suffolk very probably did envisage such a marriage, we don't know for
certain that he, or anyone, seriously considered Margaret the heir
presumptive to the throne at that date. All the charge proves is that her
claim was understood to be a strong one, though by no means definitively
recognized as senior, to the exclusion of any others. Had Henry VI died
childless Margaret, or her issue, would have been prominent in debates to
determine who succeeded him. Henry Tudor's claim was thus lawful, but weak;
its strength may have lain more than anything in his expressed willingness
to marry Elizabeth of York and in the alien foreignness of the Portuguese
and Castilian royal lines.
True. Obviously if Henry had survived but not won at Bosworth, his stature
would have been greatly diminished, seriously compromising his position as
the Lancastrian representative. Of course even if he had escaped Richard's
clutches, it would have been next to impossible for Henry thereafter to
manage a wedding with Elizabeth of York. Conquest was Henry VII's trump
card, and as has been noted here in recent days, he married Elizabeth only
after his title to the throne was acknowledged by Parliament and by his
coronation. Contrary to medieval practice, Henry delayed Elizabeth's
coronation for more than a year after their wedding; usually a new queen of
England was crowned as soon as possible after marriage. Like William III,
Henry VII did not want it said that he was raised to the throne by his
wife's apron strings. For the rest of her life, Elizabeth was among the
least visible of the medieval queens of England, and it is now generally
accepted that the "two roses" imagery of the Tudor dynasty first appeared
only in the reign of Henry VIII because Henry VII wanted no suggestions that
he acquired the throne by marriage.
Regards
John P.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Dear Leo,
I agree, Elizabeth had the senior Yorkist claim (assuming her
brothers were in fact dead; if they were not in 1485, they were surely
so soon thereafter).
Henry Tudor is another matter. He was the senior Lancastrian
claimant with any military backing; there were better claimants in
terms of primogeniture, and (I think) legitimacy, under the terms of
the Act of Legitimation (1397):
1. The descendants of Elizabeth, dau. of John of Gaunt, who m.
John Holand, duke of Exeter would come first; followed by
2. The senior descendant of Constance, dau. of John of Gaunt
(by his 2nd marriage) and her husband Henry [Enrique] III of
Castile;
~ Interestingly, that would have been Isabella, Queen of
Castile (of Ferdinand and Isabella fame).
The descendants of Elizabeth of Lancaster (Holand of Exeter) and Queen
Constance of Castile would have followed the issue of John of Gaunt's eldest
daughter Philippa, Queen of Portugal. In 1485 they would have included
Isabella of Castile, though she was not Philippa's representative in blood.
In 1485 the branch of the Holands descended from Elizabeth of Lancaster were
ineligible for the throne in virtue of the act of attainder passed against
Elizabeth's husband John Holand. He was executed after participating in a
conspiracy against her brother Henry IV. Elizabeth of Lancaster's young
children were innocent and Henry IV eventually restored the Exeter title and
estates to her son, but without reversing John Holand's attainder. Henry
thereby avoided making them serious claimants to the throne or rivals to his
descendants. The attainder had not been reversed by 1485.
The 1397 legitimation of John of Gaunt's Beaufort children did establish
them as potential heirs to the throne in English law. Henry IV personally
added to the Act of legitimation the famous words barring the legitimized
Beauforts from the royal dignity, but he did so on his own authority,
without the assent of Parliament. Henry IV's addition to the Act therefore
lacked permanent legal force and lapsed upon his death; neither Henry V nor
Henry VI made any move to re-instate it. Consequently in 1485 a claim to
the throne based on the Beaufort descent was lawful, though it remained
debatable: should the Beauforts be accepted as potential heirs to the
throne only *after* the descendants of John of Gaunt's legitimately born
children, or should male primogeniture be applied? In the former case, the
descendants of John Beaufort, first earl of Somerset--whose male
representative was indisputably Henry Tudor--would *follow* the descendants
of John of Gaunt's daughters Queen Philippa of Portugal and Queen Constance
of Castile (the issue of Elizabeth of Lancaster being still under attainder,
as above, and so incapable of claiming the throne).
There is one, slender, indication that the Beaufort claim was regarded as
senior to those of the descendants of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. Or at
least that the Beaufort claim was considered strong enough to be used as a
political weapon. When the duke of Suffolk was tried and convicted of
treason in 1450, one charge against him was that he had sought to marry his
eldest son to Margaret Beaufort, the Somerset heiress who was in Suffolk's
ward, "pretending her to be next heir to the crown of England." While
Suffolk very probably did envisage such a marriage, we don't know for
certain that he, or anyone, seriously considered Margaret the heir
presumptive to the throne at that date. All the charge proves is that her
claim was understood to be a strong one, though by no means definitively
recognized as senior, to the exclusion of any others. Had Henry VI died
childless Margaret, or her issue, would have been prominent in debates to
determine who succeeded him. Henry Tudor's claim was thus lawful, but weak;
its strength may have lain more than anything in his expressed willingness
to marry Elizabeth of York and in the alien foreignness of the Portuguese
and Castilian royal lines.
In Henry's case, the Battle of Bosworth gave him the winning hand
in the game of Plantagenet Poker: a royal victory beats a full house.
True. Obviously if Henry had survived but not won at Bosworth, his stature
would have been greatly diminished, seriously compromising his position as
the Lancastrian representative. Of course even if he had escaped Richard's
clutches, it would have been next to impossible for Henry thereafter to
manage a wedding with Elizabeth of York. Conquest was Henry VII's trump
card, and as has been noted here in recent days, he married Elizabeth only
after his title to the throne was acknowledged by Parliament and by his
coronation. Contrary to medieval practice, Henry delayed Elizabeth's
coronation for more than a year after their wedding; usually a new queen of
England was crowned as soon as possible after marriage. Like William III,
Henry VII did not want it said that he was raised to the throne by his
wife's apron strings. For the rest of her life, Elizabeth was among the
least visible of the medieval queens of England, and it is now generally
accepted that the "two roses" imagery of the Tudor dynasty first appeared
only in the reign of Henry VIII because Henry VII wanted no suggestions that
he acquired the throne by marriage.
Regards
John P.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
-
Gjest
Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus
Dear Mel,
The Daughter of Isaac Dukas Komnenos of Cyprus in mentioned
breifly (p 240) of the 1978 edition of John Gillingham`s biography "Richard
the Lionheart" Richard`s captor Duke Leopold of Austria as part of the King`s
ransom demanded his son be given Richard `s niece , Eleanor of Brittany`s hand
in marriage and in December 1194 Baldwin de Bethune escorted the Briton
princess and the daughter of Isaac Dukas Komnenos to Austria . On December 26, 1194
Leopold`s horse fell of him, crushing his foot which rapidly turned gangrenous
and though He pleaded he couldn`t get anyone to amputate it. He was under
sentence of excomunication for daring to imprison a fellow Crusader and had to
release him and repay the ransom. He finally got a servant to hit an axe while
He steadied it. It took three blows to sever his foot and by then it was too
late. On December 31, 1194 Leopold made his peace with the Church, agreed to
make restitution to Richard and died. In the Angevin`s eyes God`s justice was
done.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
The Daughter of Isaac Dukas Komnenos of Cyprus in mentioned
breifly (p 240) of the 1978 edition of John Gillingham`s biography "Richard
the Lionheart" Richard`s captor Duke Leopold of Austria as part of the King`s
ransom demanded his son be given Richard `s niece , Eleanor of Brittany`s hand
in marriage and in December 1194 Baldwin de Bethune escorted the Briton
princess and the daughter of Isaac Dukas Komnenos to Austria . On December 26, 1194
Leopold`s horse fell of him, crushing his foot which rapidly turned gangrenous
and though He pleaded he couldn`t get anyone to amputate it. He was under
sentence of excomunication for daring to imprison a fellow Crusader and had to
release him and repay the ransom. He finally got a servant to hit an axe while
He steadied it. It took three blows to sever his foot and by then it was too
late. On December 31, 1194 Leopold made his peace with the Church, agreed to
make restitution to Richard and died. In the Angevin`s eyes God`s justice was
done.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
In a message dated 1/7/2006 12:16:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
This switch was in all probabilty engineered by Hubert for his own
benefit with the willing cooperation of the Scottish king. Which
raises another question: why would William the Lion let his daughter be
married to a nobody?
The ex-husband of the ex-queen of England wasn't by that time a nobody.
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
This switch was in all probabilty engineered by Hubert for his own
benefit with the willing cooperation of the Scottish king. Which
raises another question: why would William the Lion let his daughter be
married to a nobody?
The ex-husband of the ex-queen of England wasn't by that time a nobody.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That is the indication of the two plea roll pedigrees. They relate to a
dispute over the presentation to Gedney. One of the pedigrees can be
interpreted as indicating that 35 Henry III is the date that Reyner's
sister-in-law Alice enfeoffed her share to Roger de Thurkelby, but I
suspect that this is just an artifact of the compressed syntax, that it
is simply indicating that Roger (and also the others) was living in that
date, presumably that of a prior presentation.
In full (fixed-font, with minor adjustments to better fit screen-width):
De Banco. Easter. 7. E. 3. m. 77.
Lincoln - James de Ros sued the Abbot of Croyland for the advowson of
the church of Gedeneye. The pleadings give this pedigree:
Fulk de Oyry, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|_________________________________
Alice Ela Emecina
______________________|____________________ | |
Joan=Reyner de Ela=Hervey de Alice, who William le Giles de
Burgo. 35 Stanhowe, enfeoffed Constable, Gousille,
Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3 Roger de 35 Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3
| who enfe- Thurkelby | |
William offed the of her pur- Simon, who Peter
| Abbot party enfeoffed |
Robert le Burguyllon Robert de Ralph
Ros, father |
of James the Ralph
plaintiff |
Margaret
=Philip le
Despencer
Coram Rege. Hillary. 8. E. 3. m. 24. Rex.
Linc. - The King sued James de Ros for the next presentation to the
church of Gedeneye which he claimed as guardian of Ralph de Goushill.
The pleadings give this pedigree.
Fulk de Oery, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|___________________________________
Alice Ela Emytine
____________________|_______________ | |
Joan Ela Alice, enfeoffed William le Constable Giles de
=Reyner =Hervey de Roger de Thur- 35 H. 3 Goushill,
de Burgo Stanhowe, kelby, 35 H. 3 | 35 H. 3
35 H. 3 35 H. 3 who enfeoffed Simon, who enfeoffed |
| the Abbot of Robert de Ros and Peter
William Croyland Erneburga his wife |
| | Ralph
Robert Burgilioun James de Ros, |
the defendant Ralph, underage,
and in ward to
the King
And a related suit:
De Banco. Mich. 7. E. 3. m. 222.
Linc. - William de Calthorp Chivaler, sued the Abbot of Croyland for
one-third of the manor of Gedeneye,
Ela=Hervey de Stanhowe, lord of Stanhowe & Berewyk Co. Norfolk
|
John
|
Ela=Walter de Calthorp
|
William the plaintiff, and see suit of Easter 7 E 3
(this William was also plaintiff in a Mich. 19 Edw. 2 De Banco suit
regarding Berewyk, Beremere, and Stanhowe giving the same pedigree,
minus the first Ela)
taf
In a message dated 1/6/2006 6:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The daughter, Alice, in turn
had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251].
Are you saying here that Reyner de Burgh was living in 35 Henry III ?
That is the indication of the two plea roll pedigrees. They relate to a
dispute over the presentation to Gedney. One of the pedigrees can be
interpreted as indicating that 35 Henry III is the date that Reyner's
sister-in-law Alice enfeoffed her share to Roger de Thurkelby, but I
suspect that this is just an artifact of the compressed syntax, that it
is simply indicating that Roger (and also the others) was living in that
date, presumably that of a prior presentation.
In full (fixed-font, with minor adjustments to better fit screen-width):
De Banco. Easter. 7. E. 3. m. 77.
Lincoln - James de Ros sued the Abbot of Croyland for the advowson of
the church of Gedeneye. The pleadings give this pedigree:
Fulk de Oyry, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|_________________________________
Alice Ela Emecina
______________________|____________________ | |
Joan=Reyner de Ela=Hervey de Alice, who William le Giles de
Burgo. 35 Stanhowe, enfeoffed Constable, Gousille,
Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3 Roger de 35 Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3
| who enfe- Thurkelby | |
William offed the of her pur- Simon, who Peter
| Abbot party enfeoffed |
Robert le Burguyllon Robert de Ralph
Ros, father |
of James the Ralph
plaintiff |
Margaret
=Philip le
Despencer
Coram Rege. Hillary. 8. E. 3. m. 24. Rex.
Linc. - The King sued James de Ros for the next presentation to the
church of Gedeneye which he claimed as guardian of Ralph de Goushill.
The pleadings give this pedigree.
Fulk de Oery, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|___________________________________
Alice Ela Emytine
____________________|_______________ | |
Joan Ela Alice, enfeoffed William le Constable Giles de
=Reyner =Hervey de Roger de Thur- 35 H. 3 Goushill,
de Burgo Stanhowe, kelby, 35 H. 3 | 35 H. 3
35 H. 3 35 H. 3 who enfeoffed Simon, who enfeoffed |
| the Abbot of Robert de Ros and Peter
William Croyland Erneburga his wife |
| | Ralph
Robert Burgilioun James de Ros, |
the defendant Ralph, underage,
and in ward to
the King
And a related suit:
De Banco. Mich. 7. E. 3. m. 222.
Linc. - William de Calthorp Chivaler, sued the Abbot of Croyland for
one-third of the manor of Gedeneye,
Ela=Hervey de Stanhowe, lord of Stanhowe & Berewyk Co. Norfolk
|
John
|
Ela=Walter de Calthorp
|
William the plaintiff, and see suit of Easter 7 E 3
(this William was also plaintiff in a Mich. 19 Edw. 2 De Banco suit
regarding Berewyk, Beremere, and Stanhowe giving the same pedigree,
minus the first Ela)
taf
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Elizabeth PLANTAGENET
Thank you, John, for those excellent words and thoughts.
With Henry VII's coming to the throne, post-Bosworth, I ponder with
fascination what must have been the sort of immeasurable mass
psychological weight attending his widely understood *intention* of
marrying Elizabeth of York. He seems to have shrewdly constructed a
supremely astute political chronology. Indeed, very poker-like; but
poker raised to a high level of dynastic-political art. 1485 was indeed
the year of the Royal Flush!
All best,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
With Henry VII's coming to the throne, post-Bosworth, I ponder with
fascination what must have been the sort of immeasurable mass
psychological weight attending his widely understood *intention* of
marrying Elizabeth of York. He seems to have shrewdly constructed a
supremely astute political chronology. Indeed, very poker-like; but
poker raised to a high level of dynastic-political art. 1485 was indeed
the year of the Royal Flush!
All best,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
Frankly, I think the moral of this episode is simply that we should be
sceptical about statements in secondary sources unless they can be confirmed
by contemporary evidence, and that speculation should be firmly reined in
unless there is a solid basis for it.
No evidence has been supplied to indicate that Reyner was father of Hubert,
or of _any_ Hubert. Such evidence as there is seems to point to Hubert being
associated with a different Burgh entirely. Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Apparently we can conclude much the same as is stated in the Complete
Peerage accounts - that Hubert was a brother of William de Burgh (apparently
a younger brother), that Hubert's mother was named Alice, that his brother
was related in some way to Alice Pouchard/Punchard, and that there are
certain possibilities as to his parentage - one of which, involving Reyner,
can now be ruled out.
Chris Phillips
Perhaps Reyner and Joan really are the parents of *some* Hubert, just not
*the* Hubert?
Otherwise I cannot see how anyone could make such an outrageous mistake.
Perhaps there is more than one Alice Pouchard? The whole thing has now
achieved a new high-water mark for confusion.
Frankly, I think the moral of this episode is simply that we should be
sceptical about statements in secondary sources unless they can be confirmed
by contemporary evidence, and that speculation should be firmly reined in
unless there is a solid basis for it.
No evidence has been supplied to indicate that Reyner was father of Hubert,
or of _any_ Hubert. Such evidence as there is seems to point to Hubert being
associated with a different Burgh entirely. Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Apparently we can conclude much the same as is stated in the Complete
Peerage accounts - that Hubert was a brother of William de Burgh (apparently
a younger brother), that Hubert's mother was named Alice, that his brother
was related in some way to Alice Pouchard/Punchard, and that there are
certain possibilities as to his parentage - one of which, involving Reyner,
can now be ruled out.
Chris Phillips
-
Tony Hoskins
RE: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"
From Miroslav Marek's http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ (sub: Komnenos).
I cited this before to universal silence. Or did I miss a posting that
rebuts, refutes, amends this?
Tony Hoskins
---
D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
E1. [1m.] Alexios Komnenos, +ca 1136
E2. [1m.] Ioannes Komnenos, +1136/7
E3. [1m.] Eirene Komnene; m. an unknown man and was mother of:
F1. Isaakios Dukas Komnenos, Emperor in Cyprus (1184-91), *1155/60, +of
poisoning 1195/6; 1m: 1175/6 a dau.of Thoros II, Lord of the Mountains;
2m: 1185/6 an illegitimate dau.of King William I of Sicily
G1. [1m.] a son, +1187/90
G2. [1m.] a daughter, "La Damsel de Chypre", *1177/8, +after 1204; in
1194 she was engaged to Duke Leopold of Austria, but never married him;
she 1m: 1200 (div 1202/3) Ct Raimund VI de Toulouse; 2m: 1203 Thierry de
Flandre, illegitimate son of Philippe de Lorraine, Ct of Flanders
----------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
I cited this before to universal silence. Or did I miss a posting that
rebuts, refutes, amends this?
Tony Hoskins
---
D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
E1. [1m.] Alexios Komnenos, +ca 1136
E2. [1m.] Ioannes Komnenos, +1136/7
E3. [1m.] Eirene Komnene; m. an unknown man and was mother of:
F1. Isaakios Dukas Komnenos, Emperor in Cyprus (1184-91), *1155/60, +of
poisoning 1195/6; 1m: 1175/6 a dau.of Thoros II, Lord of the Mountains;
2m: 1185/6 an illegitimate dau.of King William I of Sicily
G1. [1m.] a son, +1187/90
G2. [1m.] a daughter, "La Damsel de Chypre", *1177/8, +after 1204; in
1194 she was engaged to Duke Leopold of Austria, but never married him;
she 1m: 1200 (div 1202/3) Ct Raimund VI de Toulouse; 2m: 1203 Thierry de
Flandre, illegitimate son of Philippe de Lorraine, Ct of Flanders
----------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/7/2006 9:52:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Is not one Alice of a different generation from the other Alice?
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Is not one Alice of a different generation from the other Alice?
Will Johnson
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calve
Hello Leo,
For whatever it may be worth:
The intriguing hypothesis that the mother of Benedict Swingate/Calvert
of Maryland - an acknowledged illegitimate son of Charles Calvert, 5th
Lord Baltimore [himself an illegitimate descendant of Charles II] - was
Pertronilla Melusina. Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield was
perhaps widely floated for the first time by the gifted though
increasingly eccentric (to say the least), American genealogist George
W. H. Washington, FASG (alias S.H. Lee Washington). He wrote in 1950
[New England Historical and Genealogical Register 104:175, n.4]:
"Furthermore, in May 1778 Rebecca [(Calvert) (1749-1770)]'s son ...
entered Eton with his young Calvert uncle; and as family letters state,
he lodged at Chesterfield House in St. James's, London, residence of his
aged great-grandmother, Petronilla Melusina d'Este (1694-Sept.1778),
Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield. Lady Walsingham, who had been
at one time privately married (1723) to Charles, 5th Lord Baltimore, was
the daughter of King George I and his morganatic wife the Duchess of
Kendall."
I have never read any scholarly work on this hypothesized link, but it
is on the face of it not implausible. Lord Baltimore's intimacy with the
Royal family is clear (Cofferer to the Prince of Wales), and there is
evidence in Calvert family papers that Benedict's mother was very highly
born, for which reason her identity was said to have been strictly
concealed.
All best,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
For whatever it may be worth:
The intriguing hypothesis that the mother of Benedict Swingate/Calvert
of Maryland - an acknowledged illegitimate son of Charles Calvert, 5th
Lord Baltimore [himself an illegitimate descendant of Charles II] - was
Pertronilla Melusina. Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield was
perhaps widely floated for the first time by the gifted though
increasingly eccentric (to say the least), American genealogist George
W. H. Washington, FASG (alias S.H. Lee Washington). He wrote in 1950
[New England Historical and Genealogical Register 104:175, n.4]:
"Furthermore, in May 1778 Rebecca [(Calvert) (1749-1770)]'s son ...
entered Eton with his young Calvert uncle; and as family letters state,
he lodged at Chesterfield House in St. James's, London, residence of his
aged great-grandmother, Petronilla Melusina d'Este (1694-Sept.1778),
Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield. Lady Walsingham, who had been
at one time privately married (1723) to Charles, 5th Lord Baltimore, was
the daughter of King George I and his morganatic wife the Duchess of
Kendall."
I have never read any scholarly work on this hypothesized link, but it
is on the face of it not implausible. Lord Baltimore's intimacy with the
Royal family is clear (Cofferer to the Prince of Wales), and there is
evidence in Calvert family papers that Benedict's mother was very highly
born, for which reason her identity was said to have been strictly
concealed.
All best,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew, they
would be of the same generation, but apparently it doesn't (unless some kind
of half-sibling relationship is involved).
As far as I can see, there's no reason to think the kinship with Alice
Pouchard/Punchard arose through Hubert's mother Alice.
Chris Phillips
Is not one Alice of a different generation from the other Alice?
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew, they
would be of the same generation, but apparently it doesn't (unless some kind
of half-sibling relationship is involved).
As far as I can see, there's no reason to think the kinship with Alice
Pouchard/Punchard arose through Hubert's mother Alice.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/7/2006 1:37:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew,
But aren't you missing the information that the father was supposed to be
active during the reign of Henry III ? That's quite some time later then
Hubert.
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew,
But aren't you missing the information that the father was supposed to be
active during the reign of Henry III ? That's quite some time later then
Hubert.
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
Chris Phillips
But aren't you missing the information that the father was supposed to be
active during the reign of Henry III ? That's quite some time later then
Hubert.
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
Chris Phillips
-
Willem Nabuurs
RE: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother
Sorry, "died without heirs" should have been "died without having any living
offspring"
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Willem Nabuurs [mailto:willemnabuurs@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: zondag 8 januari 2006 10:14
Aan: 'GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com'
Onderwerp: RE: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
Furthermore, Beatrix of Putten died without heirs, and her lands (Putten and
Strijen) were inherited by her sisters grandson Sweder of Abcoude, lord of
Gaesbeek. Were Alice a daughter of Beatrix, she probably would have
inherited these lands. So not only chronology but also inheritance of lands
conflicts with Alice being the daughter of Guy of Flanders and Beatrix of
Putten.
I only have one recorded son for Beatrix, named Hugo, from her Beatrix's
first marriage with Hugo V of Gaunt. He died before 7 may 1333, so well
before his mother, who died 18 june 1354.
Willem Nabuurs
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Verzonden: zondag 8 januari 2006 1:10
Aan: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Onderwerp: Re: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
It was the sadly missed on Gen-Med Bert Kamp who pointed out the chronology
to me
Guy of Flanders married (1) Marie d'Enghien she died in 1318 and (2) in 1321
Beatrix van Putten
His daughter Alice married in 1330 and had a child in 1331. Surely we can
discount that a nine year old marries, consumates the marriage and age 10
gives birth?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
offspring"
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Willem Nabuurs [mailto:willemnabuurs@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: zondag 8 januari 2006 10:14
Aan: 'GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com'
Onderwerp: RE: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
Furthermore, Beatrix of Putten died without heirs, and her lands (Putten and
Strijen) were inherited by her sisters grandson Sweder of Abcoude, lord of
Gaesbeek. Were Alice a daughter of Beatrix, she probably would have
inherited these lands. So not only chronology but also inheritance of lands
conflicts with Alice being the daughter of Guy of Flanders and Beatrix of
Putten.
I only have one recorded son for Beatrix, named Hugo, from her Beatrix's
first marriage with Hugo V of Gaunt. He died before 7 may 1333, so well
before his mother, who died 18 june 1354.
Willem Nabuurs
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Verzonden: zondag 8 januari 2006 1:10
Aan: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Onderwerp: Re: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
It was the sadly missed on Gen-Med Bert Kamp who pointed out the chronology
to me
Guy of Flanders married (1) Marie d'Enghien she died in 1318 and (2) in 1321
Beatrix van Putten
His daughter Alice married in 1330 and had a child in 1331. Surely we can
discount that a nine year old marries, consumates the marriage and age 10
gives birth?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Alix of Flanders-Richebourg (d.1346): who was her mother?
Two excellent online sources differ in listing the mother of Alix of
Flanders, heiress of Richebourg ([b.c.1322, per Marek] d. 1346, wife of
Jean I de Luxembourg, Comte de Ligny (d. 1364), daughter of Guy of
Flanders, seigneur de Richebourg (d.1345). According to these sources
Alix' mother was:
1) Beatrix, Lady of Putten and Strijen (md. Oct 1321, d. 18 June 1354).
[Miroslav Marek
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/flanders/flanders5.html ]
or
2) Marie d'Enghien, Burgravine of Ghent, Lady of Zotteghem.
[Leo van de Pas,
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php? ... 3&tree=LEO
Thanks.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
Dear Newsgroup,
I sent the following e-mail to leesmyth@cox.net
yesterday with full intent of sharing the information with the Newsgroup as a
whole. William the Lion, King of Scots couldn`t object to Hubert de Burgh`s
marrying his daughter Margaret as He had been dead two years longer (1214) than
had King John of England. A lot of important persons died in England and
Scotland between 1214-1221. According to Alan Young`s "The Comyns 1212-1314 p 27
William Comyn, Earl of Buchan witnessed the marriage at York in 1221 of King
Alexander II of the Scots and Henry III`s sister Joan of England. In March 1229
Alexander II gave to his younger sister Margaret for her marriage, all of
Tynedale, stipulating however that He would retain to himself the homage of William
Comyn, Earl of Buchan and his heirs for the said Tynedale, thereby sending
Hubert de Burgh a clear message of his displeasure and that of Comyn for his
daring to circumvent their plans. Had Margaret married Henry III, the Earl of
Buchan would of course done homage for his substancial Tynedale properties to him
together with the homage He already owed to him.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I sent the following e-mail to leesmyth@cox.net
yesterday with full intent of sharing the information with the Newsgroup as a
whole. William the Lion, King of Scots couldn`t object to Hubert de Burgh`s
marrying his daughter Margaret as He had been dead two years longer (1214) than
had King John of England. A lot of important persons died in England and
Scotland between 1214-1221. According to Alan Young`s "The Comyns 1212-1314 p 27
William Comyn, Earl of Buchan witnessed the marriage at York in 1221 of King
Alexander II of the Scots and Henry III`s sister Joan of England. In March 1229
Alexander II gave to his younger sister Margaret for her marriage, all of
Tynedale, stipulating however that He would retain to himself the homage of William
Comyn, Earl of Buchan and his heirs for the said Tynedale, thereby sending
Hubert de Burgh a clear message of his displeasure and that of Comyn for his
daring to circumvent their plans. Had Margaret married Henry III, the Earl of
Buchan would of course done homage for his substancial Tynedale properties to him
together with the homage He already owed to him.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
Dear Fellow Listers,
I have had an e-mail from CED whose server to
SGM currently appears to be down. He wishes me to acknowledge for him that He
was in error concerning the date of King William the Lion of the Scots` death
date.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I have had an e-mail from CED whose server to
SGM currently appears to be down. He wishes me to acknowledge for him that He
was in error concerning the date of King William the Lion of the Scots` death
date.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 1:07:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
And this still leaves us with two seperate Alice Pouchard's.
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
And this still leaves us with two seperate Alice Pouchard's.
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard. But that seems to be incorrect - based on the
assumption that "nepos" meant "nephew". If that's not the case, there's no
reason to think Hubert's mother was a Pouchard/Punchard. She may or may not
have been related somehow to Alice Pouchard/Punchard.
Chris Phillips
And this still leaves us with two seperate Alice Pouchard's.
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard. But that seems to be incorrect - based on the
assumption that "nepos" meant "nephew". If that's not the case, there's no
reason to think Hubert's mother was a Pouchard/Punchard. She may or may not
have been related somehow to Alice Pouchard/Punchard.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:07:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard.
But see you're still missing one. That is the one described in the lawsuit.
Who, in my opinion, cannot be the same Alice.
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard.
But see you're still missing one. That is the one described in the lawsuit.
Who, in my opinion, cannot be the same Alice.
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
I think I mispoke....
Alice de Burgh is who I meant. Not Alice Pouchard
Alice de Burgh is who I meant. Not Alice Pouchard
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
Hawise, countess of Aumale (d. 1214), granted Fulk d'Oyry free warren in
Dunnington, (fn. 66) and in 1223 he had 2 carucates there. (fn. 67) The estate
evidently passed to Sir Geoffrey d'Oyry and then to Fulk's grandson Sir William
Constable and his successors. (fn. 68) In 1282 William's son Sir Simon
Constable settled DUNNINGTON manor on his son Robert and his wife, (fn. 69) and
their son Sir John (d. 1349) held a house and ½ carucate there of the
Hospitallers by knight service. (fn. 70) In 1542 the estate apparently included eight
houses. (fn. 71) Sir John Constable sold land at Dunnington to George
Creswell in 1566, and it presumably descended with the rest of Cresswell's estate
there. (fn. 72)
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
.. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
66 R.D.B., 281/194/163; 1651/271/216.
67 Datestone (weathered) on bridge (transcribed at E.R.A.O., PE/114/7);
E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 108.
68 H.U.L., DWB/1/3; E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 109; dates on bridges;
O.S. Map 1/10,560, TA 15 NW. (1956 edn.).
69 Brid. Chart. 163; Chron. de Melsa, i. 225.
70 R.D.B., AN/391/27; E.R.A.O., DDX/674.
71 R.D.B., AK/57/6.
72 Directories.
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
.. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
Hawise, countess of Aumale (d. 1214), granted Fulk d'Oyry free warren in
Dunnington, (fn. 66) and in 1223 he had 2 carucates there. (fn. 67) The estate
evidently passed to Sir Geoffrey d'Oyry and then to Fulk's grandson Sir William
Constable and his successors. (fn. 68) In 1282 William's son Sir Simon
Constable settled DUNNINGTON manor on his son Robert and his wife, (fn. 69) and
their son Sir John (d. 1349) held a house and ½ carucate there of the
Hospitallers by knight service. (fn. 70) In 1542 the estate apparently included eight
houses. (fn. 71) Sir John Constable sold land at Dunnington to George
Creswell in 1566, and it presumably descended with the rest of Cresswell's estate
there. (fn. 72)
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
.. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
66 R.D.B., 281/194/163; 1651/271/216.
67 Datestone (weathered) on bridge (transcribed at E.R.A.O., PE/114/7);
E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 108.
68 H.U.L., DWB/1/3; E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 109; dates on bridges;
O.S. Map 1/10,560, TA 15 NW. (1956 edn.).
69 Brid. Chart. 163; Chron. de Melsa, i. 225.
70 R.D.B., AN/391/27; E.R.A.O., DDX/674.
71 R.D.B., AK/57/6.
72 Directories.
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=Meaux)
.. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
This document found in A2A is obviously relevant to figuring out the various
relationships mentioned in this thread so far.
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Papers relating to VARIOUS DEEDS - ref. DDCC/135
FILE - "Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the
Constables" - ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
[from Scope and Content] 19 Gift: William the Constable to Hugh son of
Geoffrey de Oyry for life property all lands in Lutham which he inherited from his
uncle Geoffrey Oyri and which Dame Ida le Oyri held in dower on death of G.
her husband Witn. Sir Robert de Rye, Sir Giles de Gowsell, Sir Peter his
brother, Sir Fulk the Constable, "Lave", Gilbert de Cheyle, William de
Trig'gillm., Thomas the physician ("medico"), Thomas de Westm', John son of Bernard,
Roger de Geyt, Geoffrey de Oyri, William de Oyri, Robert de Rigsted.
relationships mentioned in this thread so far.
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Papers relating to VARIOUS DEEDS - ref. DDCC/135
FILE - "Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the
Constables" - ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
[from Scope and Content] 19 Gift: William the Constable to Hugh son of
Geoffrey de Oyry for life property all lands in Lutham which he inherited from his
uncle Geoffrey Oyri and which Dame Ida le Oyri held in dower on death of G.
her husband Witn. Sir Robert de Rye, Sir Giles de Gowsell, Sir Peter his
brother, Sir Fulk the Constable, "Lave", Gilbert de Cheyle, William de
Trig'gillm., Thomas the physician ("medico"), Thomas de Westm', John son of Bernard,
Roger de Geyt, Geoffrey de Oyri, William de Oyri, Robert de Rigsted.
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
As is this one. It's interesting that the archivist evidently had no clue
to offer to the date other than "pre-1230" which is a little vague.
Will Johnson
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/136 - DDCC2/G]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s):
Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
RENTALS AND SURVEYS - ref. DDCC/141
FILE - "SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF
DEEDS OF HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Quitclaim - ref. DDCC/141/68/p21/a - date: pre-1230
[from Scope and Content] Stephen of Halsam to Lady Ela of Hausam property
Robert Lende and his family Witn. Sir Fulk of Oyry, William Pasmer and his son
Stephen then bailiff of Earl Samson of Bracel', Luke of Hedon.
to offer to the date other than "pre-1230" which is a little vague.
Will Johnson
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/136 - DDCC2/G]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s):
Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
RENTALS AND SURVEYS - ref. DDCC/141
FILE - "SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF
DEEDS OF HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Quitclaim - ref. DDCC/141/68/p21/a - date: pre-1230
[from Scope and Content] Stephen of Halsam to Lady Ela of Hausam property
Robert Lende and his family Witn. Sir Fulk of Oyry, William Pasmer and his son
Stephen then bailiff of Earl Samson of Bracel', Luke of Hedon.
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
I think I mispoke....
Alice de Burgh is who I meant. Not Alice Pouchard
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh
Can I now go back to my original notes on Hurbert de Burgh based on CP and
Clarence Ellis, or has anything constructive been given in the thread here?
Its time I climbed a long way forward in this tree (well it would be but for
the problem over the connection to the Lord Clanricardes, the Earl of which
eventually ended up in a branch of my Browne ancestors - an indirect ancestor)
to the Burkes (aka de Burgh) of co Mayo, Ireland during the 16 century. If
you imagine the problems a Welshmen may have with _Price_, that will give you
some idea of the Burkes of co Mayo at this time, everyone who was anyone was
called Burke. I am particularly interested in the family Richard Bourke
(-1583) "a Iarain" father of Theobald 1st Viscount Mayo. Richard's wife (the
original marriage was "certain for one year" but could be continued by mutual
consent, which, following a few rough patches, happened) was Grace O'Mally
(many variants of her name) who is the legendary pirate queen of co Mayo, and as
such it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Its in her issue, by a
previous marriage, who, in 1589, did for my ancestor John Browne sheriff of co
Mayo, an English in-commer, well probably.
Adrian
Clarence Ellis, or has anything constructive been given in the thread here?
Its time I climbed a long way forward in this tree (well it would be but for
the problem over the connection to the Lord Clanricardes, the Earl of which
eventually ended up in a branch of my Browne ancestors - an indirect ancestor)
to the Burkes (aka de Burgh) of co Mayo, Ireland during the 16 century. If
you imagine the problems a Welshmen may have with _Price_, that will give you
some idea of the Burkes of co Mayo at this time, everyone who was anyone was
called Burke. I am particularly interested in the family Richard Bourke
(-1583) "a Iarain" father of Theobald 1st Viscount Mayo. Richard's wife (the
original marriage was "certain for one year" but could be continued by mutual
consent, which, following a few rough patches, happened) was Grace O'Mally
(many variants of her name) who is the legendary pirate queen of co Mayo, and as
such it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Its in her issue, by a
previous marriage, who, in 1589, did for my ancestor John Browne sheriff of co
Mayo, an English in-commer, well probably.
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:52:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
No one, me included, is arguing that Blomefield was correct. However I
think the situation is a little more complex than you are describing. I need to
go back through and collect more primary documents, but I have a feeling
these three Alice's are all related... to each other. It's just a hunch right
now. Unless someone has some specifics that could solve it all.
Will
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
No one, me included, is arguing that Blomefield was correct. However I
think the situation is a little more complex than you are describing. I need to
go back through and collect more primary documents, but I have a feeling
these three Alice's are all related... to each other. It's just a hunch right
now. Unless someone has some specifics that could solve it all.
Will
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
Presumably there's a 50-50 chance that Hubert's mother Alice is related
_somehow_ to Alice Pouchard/Punchard - assuming he was a full brother of
Geoffrey, the "nepos" of the latter Alice.
But I'd be more sceptical about fitting Alice the mother-in-law of Reyner de
Burgh into the picture. It looks to me as though Blomefield thought along
these lines: (1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh; (2) He knew Reyner's wife was a daughter of Alice, the daughter of
Fulk d'Oiry; (3) He knew Hubert's brother Geoffrey was "nepos" of Alice the
daughter of John Pouchard/Punchard. Therefore, assuming "nepos" meant
"nephew", he deduced that Reyner's wife must also have been a daughter of
John Pouchard/Punchard, so her mother Alice the daughter of Fulk d'Oiry must
have been John's wife.
Given that (1) is incorrect, I don't see any reason to think that Reyner de
Burgh's mother-in-law Alice is related to the other Alices - Hubert de
Burgh's mother and Geoffrey de Burgh's female blood relation (presumably).
Chris Phillips
No one, me included, is arguing that Blomefield was correct. However I
think the situation is a little more complex than you are describing. I
need to
go back through and collect more primary documents, but I have a feeling
these three Alice's are all related... to each other. It's just a hunch
right
now. Unless someone has some specifics that could solve it all.
Presumably there's a 50-50 chance that Hubert's mother Alice is related
_somehow_ to Alice Pouchard/Punchard - assuming he was a full brother of
Geoffrey, the "nepos" of the latter Alice.
But I'd be more sceptical about fitting Alice the mother-in-law of Reyner de
Burgh into the picture. It looks to me as though Blomefield thought along
these lines: (1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh; (2) He knew Reyner's wife was a daughter of Alice, the daughter of
Fulk d'Oiry; (3) He knew Hubert's brother Geoffrey was "nepos" of Alice the
daughter of John Pouchard/Punchard. Therefore, assuming "nepos" meant
"nephew", he deduced that Reyner's wife must also have been a daughter of
John Pouchard/Punchard, so her mother Alice the daughter of Fulk d'Oiry must
have been John's wife.
Given that (1) is incorrect, I don't see any reason to think that Reyner de
Burgh's mother-in-law Alice is related to the other Alices - Hubert de
Burgh's mother and Geoffrey de Burgh's female blood relation (presumably).
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 4:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
(1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh;
The problem being the people he was talking about lived at least a century
apart. That doesn't strike you as odd? That a historian would put together
people so far apart as one family? It stikes me as odd, and tells me that
perhaps something else more complex is going on here.
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
(1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh;
The problem being the people he was talking about lived at least a century
apart. That doesn't strike you as odd? That a historian would put together
people so far apart as one family? It stikes me as odd, and tells me that
perhaps something else more complex is going on here.
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
This document is a little confusing. At first it seemed to me that
Geoffrey, the father of Hugh was the same as Geoffrey the uncle of William. But now
I'm not so sure. It appears that William inherited from his uncle Geoffrey,
but than we see a Geoffrey de Oyri as a witness to this document. So now I'm
thinking that there were two Geoffrey's. Does everyone agree with that?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:44:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine,
East
Riding of Yorkshire
Papers relating to VARIOUS DEEDS - ref. DDCC/135
FILE - "Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the
Constables" - ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
[from Scope and Content] 19 Gift: William the Constable to Hugh son of
Geoffrey de Oyry for life property all lands in Lutham which he inherited
from his
uncle Geoffrey Oyri and which Dame Ida le Oyri held in dower on death of G.
her husband Witn. Sir Robert de Rye, Sir Giles de Gowsell, Sir Peter his
brother, Sir Fulk the Constable, "Lave", Gilbert de Cheyle, William de
Trig'gillm., Thomas the physician ("medico"), Thomas de Westm', John son of
Bernard,
Roger de Geyt, Geoffrey de Oyri, William de Oyri, Robert de Rigsted.
Geoffrey, the father of Hugh was the same as Geoffrey the uncle of William. But now
I'm not so sure. It appears that William inherited from his uncle Geoffrey,
but than we see a Geoffrey de Oyri as a witness to this document. So now I'm
thinking that there were two Geoffrey's. Does everyone agree with that?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:44:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine,
East
Riding of Yorkshire
Papers relating to VARIOUS DEEDS - ref. DDCC/135
FILE - "Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the
Constables" - ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
[from Scope and Content] 19 Gift: William the Constable to Hugh son of
Geoffrey de Oyry for life property all lands in Lutham which he inherited
from his
uncle Geoffrey Oyri and which Dame Ida le Oyri held in dower on death of G.
her husband Witn. Sir Robert de Rye, Sir Giles de Gowsell, Sir Peter his
brother, Sir Fulk the Constable, "Lave", Gilbert de Cheyle, William de
Trig'gillm., Thomas the physician ("medico"), Thomas de Westm', John son of
Bernard,
Roger de Geyt, Geoffrey de Oyri, William de Oyri, Robert de Rigsted.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There were clearly at least two - the deceased and the witness. It is
still possible that Hugh was son of the uncle, but only if illegitimate.
taf
This document is a little confusing. At first it seemed to me that
Geoffrey, the father of Hugh was the same as Geoffrey the uncle of William. But now
I'm not so sure. It appears that William inherited from his uncle Geoffrey,
but than we see a Geoffrey de Oyri as a witness to this document. So now I'm
thinking that there were two Geoffrey's. Does everyone agree with that?
There were clearly at least two - the deceased and the witness. It is
still possible that Hugh was son of the uncle, but only if illegitimate.
taf
-
CED
Re: Hubert de Burgh
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Hubert's marriage to Isabella of Gloucester lasted only a few days
(Her marriage to Hubert and her death both occurred on October of
1217). She held the vast undivided estates of the Gloucester
inheritance. After the annulment, King John maintained control of her
estates for about fourteen years and then forced her upon Geoffrey de
Mandeville, earl of Essex, with a heavy fine (in 1214). I cannot find
evidence that Essex gained anything from this marriage except the heavy
fine. Hubert could not have married this great heiress without the
approval of William le Marshal, earl of Pembroke. There has been
speculation that Hubert was a place-holder husband to keep Isabella's
estates in tact until after her death when those estates came to
Gilbert de Clare, a close friend of Hubert.
CED
In a message dated 1/7/2006 12:16:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
This switch was in all probabilty engineered by Hubert for his own
benefit with the willing cooperation of the Scottish king. Which
raises another question: why would William the Lion let his daughter be
married to a nobody?
The ex-husband of the ex-queen of England wasn't by that time a nobody.
Hubert's marriage to Isabella of Gloucester lasted only a few days
(Her marriage to Hubert and her death both occurred on October of
1217). She held the vast undivided estates of the Gloucester
inheritance. After the annulment, King John maintained control of her
estates for about fourteen years and then forced her upon Geoffrey de
Mandeville, earl of Essex, with a heavy fine (in 1214). I cannot find
evidence that Essex gained anything from this marriage except the heavy
fine. Hubert could not have married this great heiress without the
approval of William le Marshal, earl of Pembroke. There has been
speculation that Hubert was a place-holder husband to keep Isabella's
estates in tact until after her death when those estates came to
Gilbert de Clare, a close friend of Hubert.
CED
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
"Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the Constables"
- ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
hit[from Scope and Content] 14 Memorandum of adoption by Simon le
Constable son of William, and grandchild and heir of Adela de Ory of the
Oiry arms (barry or and azure) in place of those of his ancestors (or a
fess chequy argent and azure, in chief a lion passant gules).
hit[from Scope and Content] 11 Gift: Fulk de Oiri to Robert the
Constable in marriage with his daughter Ela property ½ carucate in
Newton which Robert the Constable (uncle of the said Robert) gave to
Walter de Tharet Witn. Adam de Torno, John de Melsa, Simon de Sketling,
William Passemer, John de Humbleton, Walter de Weton, William de
Holbechia, William de Welsonia, Robert de Glocestre, William de.
"SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF DEEDS OF
HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Gift in free dower - ref. DDCC/141/68/p22/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Robert son of William Constable to
his wife Ela daughter of Fulk de Oiri property the whole town of Hausam,
also Tarlestorp and Grosse with all appurtenances for as long as Hawise
of Blossevill lives. And if the premises are not equal to a third of his
fee, then she shall profit from a third of his other lands. Witn.
Jordan, abbot of "Horent'" (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) Torrington) Gamel
the chaplain, John Belet, Ralph son of Gilly ("Eillon'") of Gousia
(Goxhill), Hugh of Bereford, William Salvain, Peter his brother, John
the clerk of Humbleton, William of Walsoke, Walter of Witon, Herbert of
Flinton, William del Fur', Peter and Jake the clerks, William le Fol,
Robert of Gloucester, William of Cadena', Richard "racun Golding", W. of
Holebec.
item: Demise - ref. DDCC/141/68/p29/b - date: n.d. (c.1201)
hit[from Scope and Content] Hawise of Blossevill daughter of
Jordan of Blossevill to Fulk of Oiri, his heirs and assigns property all
her desmesne of Halsham Nor her life, rendering 10 marks of silver
yearly in the octave of St. Martin in Winter to her or her messenger at
Torenton (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) who carries her letters patent to Fulk.
item: Grant - ref. DDCC/141/68/p43/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk of Oiri to Robert the
Constable, with Fulk's daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her
property ½ carucate in Neuton (Constable) with its totfs and
appurtenances which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert, gave
to Walter of Thanet.
Papers relating to PAULL - ref. DDCC/74
FILE - Quitclaim for £10 - ref. DDCC/74/1 - date: c1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Isabel daughter of Pain of Holm and
of Matilda daughter of Robert de Pagla, to Fulk de Oiri property: all
her land in Holm to be held of her maternal aunt Alice daughter of
Robert de Pagla. Witn. Adam de Thorne, John de Beverley, Saer de Sunt'
(Sutton?), Adam de Preston, Hugh de Halsam, Peter de Spin(etc?), Robert
de Witona, Peter Grimbald, Ranulf the Sheriff, William Passemer, Thomas
the clerk. William de Walsoken.
Papers relating to WEST NEWTON - ref. DDCC/103
FILE - Quitclaim for £5 marks of silver - ref. DDCC/103/1 - date:
c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Adam de Melsa to Fulk de Oiri
property: ½ carucate in Neuton which Adam bought from Walter Thanet to
be held from Robert the Constable and his heirs. Rendering a pound of
cummin yearly for all services and doing forinsec service for ½ carucate
where 8 carucates make a knight's fee.
hit[from Scope and Content] Witn. Walter de Faukenbergia. Adam de
Thorna, Simon de Soeftling, Adam de Prestun, John de Harpeham, William
de Areines, Seier de Sutthona, Robert de Witun, Richard de Hesint'
clerk, Simon de Wainfled, Robert de Gloucestre, Hugh de Oiri, Ranulf the
clerk, Adam son of Alan, Peter Grimbaud, Richard Buch, Matthew de
Houstwic. Endorsed BXIX.
FILE - Gift - ref. DDCC/103/2 - date: c.1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk de Oiri to Robert the Constable
with his daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her property: ½
carucate in Neuton which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert,
gave to Walter de Thanet With reversion to Fulk. Rendering one pound of
cummin yearly for all services. With Adam de Torna, John de Melda, Simon
de Skeflinge, Ranulf the sheriff, William Passemer, John de Humbelton,
Walter de Witon, (William?) de Holbechia, Gilbert de Walsoken, Robert de
Gloucesteria, William de Furnis.
hit[from Scope and Content] Seal, a classical head, helmeted, in
profile to the right, "SIGILLUM FULCONIS DE OIRI".
As is this one. It's interesting that the archivist evidently had no clue
to offer to the date other than "pre-1230" which is a little vague.
Will Johnson
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/136 - DDCC2/G]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
From the same collection:
"Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the Constables"
- ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
hit[from Scope and Content] 14 Memorandum of adoption by Simon le
Constable son of William, and grandchild and heir of Adela de Ory of the
Oiry arms (barry or and azure) in place of those of his ancestors (or a
fess chequy argent and azure, in chief a lion passant gules).
hit[from Scope and Content] 11 Gift: Fulk de Oiri to Robert the
Constable in marriage with his daughter Ela property ½ carucate in
Newton which Robert the Constable (uncle of the said Robert) gave to
Walter de Tharet Witn. Adam de Torno, John de Melsa, Simon de Sketling,
William Passemer, John de Humbleton, Walter de Weton, William de
Holbechia, William de Welsonia, Robert de Glocestre, William de.
"SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF DEEDS OF
HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Gift in free dower - ref. DDCC/141/68/p22/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Robert son of William Constable to
his wife Ela daughter of Fulk de Oiri property the whole town of Hausam,
also Tarlestorp and Grosse with all appurtenances for as long as Hawise
of Blossevill lives. And if the premises are not equal to a third of his
fee, then she shall profit from a third of his other lands. Witn.
Jordan, abbot of "Horent'" (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) Torrington) Gamel
the chaplain, John Belet, Ralph son of Gilly ("Eillon'") of Gousia
(Goxhill), Hugh of Bereford, William Salvain, Peter his brother, John
the clerk of Humbleton, William of Walsoke, Walter of Witon, Herbert of
Flinton, William del Fur', Peter and Jake the clerks, William le Fol,
Robert of Gloucester, William of Cadena', Richard "racun Golding", W. of
Holebec.
item: Demise - ref. DDCC/141/68/p29/b - date: n.d. (c.1201)
hit[from Scope and Content] Hawise of Blossevill daughter of
Jordan of Blossevill to Fulk of Oiri, his heirs and assigns property all
her desmesne of Halsham Nor her life, rendering 10 marks of silver
yearly in the octave of St. Martin in Winter to her or her messenger at
Torenton (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) who carries her letters patent to Fulk.
item: Grant - ref. DDCC/141/68/p43/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk of Oiri to Robert the
Constable, with Fulk's daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her
property ½ carucate in Neuton (Constable) with its totfs and
appurtenances which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert, gave
to Walter of Thanet.
Papers relating to PAULL - ref. DDCC/74
FILE - Quitclaim for £10 - ref. DDCC/74/1 - date: c1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Isabel daughter of Pain of Holm and
of Matilda daughter of Robert de Pagla, to Fulk de Oiri property: all
her land in Holm to be held of her maternal aunt Alice daughter of
Robert de Pagla. Witn. Adam de Thorne, John de Beverley, Saer de Sunt'
(Sutton?), Adam de Preston, Hugh de Halsam, Peter de Spin(etc?), Robert
de Witona, Peter Grimbald, Ranulf the Sheriff, William Passemer, Thomas
the clerk. William de Walsoken.
Papers relating to WEST NEWTON - ref. DDCC/103
FILE - Quitclaim for £5 marks of silver - ref. DDCC/103/1 - date:
c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Adam de Melsa to Fulk de Oiri
property: ½ carucate in Neuton which Adam bought from Walter Thanet to
be held from Robert the Constable and his heirs. Rendering a pound of
cummin yearly for all services and doing forinsec service for ½ carucate
where 8 carucates make a knight's fee.
hit[from Scope and Content] Witn. Walter de Faukenbergia. Adam de
Thorna, Simon de Soeftling, Adam de Prestun, John de Harpeham, William
de Areines, Seier de Sutthona, Robert de Witun, Richard de Hesint'
clerk, Simon de Wainfled, Robert de Gloucestre, Hugh de Oiri, Ranulf the
clerk, Adam son of Alan, Peter Grimbaud, Richard Buch, Matthew de
Houstwic. Endorsed BXIX.
FILE - Gift - ref. DDCC/103/2 - date: c.1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk de Oiri to Robert the Constable
with his daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her property: ½
carucate in Neuton which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert,
gave to Walter de Thanet With reversion to Fulk. Rendering one pound of
cummin yearly for all services. With Adam de Torna, John de Melda, Simon
de Skeflinge, Ranulf the sheriff, William Passemer, John de Humbelton,
Walter de Witon, (William?) de Holbechia, Gilbert de Walsoken, Robert de
Gloucesteria, William de Furnis.
hit[from Scope and Content] Seal, a classical head, helmeted, in
profile to the right, "SIGILLUM FULCONIS DE OIRI".
-
Akrogiali
Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"
Why "Europeans" uses the name Komninos? Do they want to be related to
Komninos rather than Doukas? or are there any other reasons? Why everybody
quote specific books or websites?
She was a DOUKAS, her father was Isaac DOUKAS and her Grandfather was
Andronicus DOUKAS. Her grandmother was Irene Komninos, That's the closest
she got to a Komninos blood.
She was born towards the end of 1177 and had a brother born 1176 but died
soon after.
best wishes
PS:
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s3bf98b0.076@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Komninos rather than Doukas? or are there any other reasons? Why everybody
quote specific books or websites?
She was a DOUKAS, her father was Isaac DOUKAS and her Grandfather was
Andronicus DOUKAS. Her grandmother was Irene Komninos, That's the closest
she got to a Komninos blood.
She was born towards the end of 1177 and had a brother born 1176 but died
soon after.
best wishes
PS:
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s3bf98b0.076@CENTRAL_SVR2...
From Miroslav Marek's http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ (sub: Komnenos).
I cited this before to universal silence. Or did I miss a posting that
rebuts, refutes, amends this?
Tony Hoskins
---
D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
E1. [1m.] Alexios Komnenos, +ca 1136
E2. [1m.] Ioannes Komnenos, +1136/7
E3. [1m.] Eirene Komnene; m. an unknown man and was mother of:
F1. Isaakios Dukas Komnenos, Emperor in Cyprus (1184-91), *1155/60, +of
poisoning 1195/6; 1m: 1175/6 a dau.of Thoros II, Lord of the Mountains;
2m: 1185/6 an illegitimate dau.of King William I of Sicily
G1. [1m.] a son, +1187/90
G2. [1m.] a daughter, "La Damsel de Chypre", *1177/8, +after 1204; in
1194 she was engaged to Duke Leopold of Austria, but never married him;
she 1m: 1200 (div 1202/3) Ct Raimund VI de Toulouse; 2m: 1203 Thierry de
Flandre, illegitimate son of Philippe de Lorraine, Ct of Flanders
----------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Akrogiali
Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"
By the way,
Maria and Anna
and 2 more children with Irene Synadynos; Theodora and Eudokia.
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s3bf98b0.076@CENTRAL_SVR2...
D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,
Maria and Anna
and 2 more children with Irene Synadynos; Theodora and Eudokia.
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s3bf98b0.076@CENTRAL_SVR2...
From Miroslav Marek's http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ (sub: Komnenos).
I cited this before to universal silence. Or did I miss a posting that
rebuts, refutes, amends this?
Tony Hoskins
---
D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
E1. [1m.] Alexios Komnenos, +ca 1136
E2. [1m.] Ioannes Komnenos, +1136/7
E3. [1m.] Eirene Komnene; m. an unknown man and was mother of:
F1. Isaakios Dukas Komnenos, Emperor in Cyprus (1184-91), *1155/60, +of
poisoning 1195/6; 1m: 1175/6 a dau.of Thoros II, Lord of the Mountains;
2m: 1185/6 an illegitimate dau.of King William I of Sicily
G1. [1m.] a son, +1187/90
G2. [1m.] a daughter, "La Damsel de Chypre", *1177/8, +after 1204; in
1194 she was engaged to Duke Leopold of Austria, but never married him;
she 1m: 1200 (div 1202/3) Ct Raimund VI de Toulouse; 2m: 1203 Thierry de
Flandre, illegitimate son of Philippe de Lorraine, Ct of Flanders
----------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calve
Thanks to Tony Hoskins the story seems to be not as farfetched as I
originally thought. As the illegitimate descendants of George I have been
rather obscure, I have made a file (not a large one) with descendants via
the Schulenburg mistress. These include a few Germans but they fizzle out
pretty quickly. The main bulk are Americans, that is if this link can
remain. The links it creates are pretty incredible as we find a step-son of
George Washington, descendants of Charles II and one is even the
sister-in-law of the deliciously scandalous Jane Digby, and, of course,
General Robert E. Lee.
If anyone is interested, just ask and I will send the file. Amongst the
American descendants I could add several more but have not as yet got around
to enter all, and so-----any additions most welcome. Especially conformation
about the mother of Benedict Swingate Calvert.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calvert
originally thought. As the illegitimate descendants of George I have been
rather obscure, I have made a file (not a large one) with descendants via
the Schulenburg mistress. These include a few Germans but they fizzle out
pretty quickly. The main bulk are Americans, that is if this link can
remain. The links it creates are pretty incredible as we find a step-son of
George Washington, descendants of Charles II and one is even the
sister-in-law of the deliciously scandalous Jane Digby, and, of course,
General Robert E. Lee.
If anyone is interested, just ask and I will send the file. Amongst the
American descendants I could add several more but have not as yet got around
to enter all, and so-----any additions most welcome. Especially conformation
about the mother of Benedict Swingate Calvert.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calvert
Hello Leo,
For whatever it may be worth:
The intriguing hypothesis that the mother of Benedict Swingate/Calvert
of Maryland - an acknowledged illegitimate son of Charles Calvert, 5th
Lord Baltimore [himself an illegitimate descendant of Charles II] - was
Pertronilla Melusina. Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield was
perhaps widely floated for the first time by the gifted though
increasingly eccentric (to say the least), American genealogist George
W. H. Washington, FASG (alias S.H. Lee Washington). He wrote in 1950
[New England Historical and Genealogical Register 104:175, n.4]:
"Furthermore, in May 1778 Rebecca [(Calvert) (1749-1770)]'s son ...
entered Eton with his young Calvert uncle; and as family letters state,
he lodged at Chesterfield House in St. James's, London, residence of his
aged great-grandmother, Petronilla Melusina d'Este (1694-Sept.1778),
Countess of Walsingham and Chesterfield. Lady Walsingham, who had been
at one time privately married (1723) to Charles, 5th Lord Baltimore, was
the daughter of King George I and his morganatic wife the Duchess of
Kendall."
I have never read any scholarly work on this hypothesized link, but it
is on the face of it not implausible. Lord Baltimore's intimacy with the
Royal family is clear (Cofferer to the Prince of Wales), and there is
evidence in Calvert family papers that Benedict's mother was very highly
born, for which reason her identity was said to have been strictly
concealed.
All best,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
I wrote:
Will Johnson replied:
I don't think the discrepancy is anything like a century - couldn't Hubert's
parents have survived well into the 1200s, if they lived to a ripe age?
I can't really imagine what sort of more complex relationship could have
provoked Blomefield's error. It seems more likely that he simply didn't have
firm dates for Reyner (and/or Hubert).
I suppose it's possible that Blomefield had seen a record involving an
earlier Reyner, but that would still leave the younger Reyner's
mother-in-law out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
(1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh;
Will Johnson replied:
The problem being the people he was talking about lived at least a century
apart. That doesn't strike you as odd? That a historian would put
together
people so far apart as one family? It stikes me as odd, and tells me
that
perhaps something else more complex is going on here.
I don't think the discrepancy is anything like a century - couldn't Hubert's
parents have survived well into the 1200s, if they lived to a ripe age?
I can't really imagine what sort of more complex relationship could have
provoked Blomefield's error. It seems more likely that he simply didn't have
firm dates for Reyner (and/or Hubert).
I suppose it's possible that Blomefield had seen a record involving an
earlier Reyner, but that would still leave the younger Reyner's
mother-in-law out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calve
I'd urge extreme caution about this. Someone claiming the descent
popped up on Alt.Talk.Royalty in 2003 (and apparently the line is
included in Gary Boyd Roberts' RD500) but William Addams Reitwiesner
responded that it is 'demonstrably false'. He mentioned that GSHL
Washington wrote two later pieces, in Notes and Queries (vol 198 no2
[Dec 1953] pp527-9; vol 210 no2 [Feb 1965] pp43-7), in which he gave
two further, different mothers for Benedict Swingate (and fathers for
Gov. Charles Calvert). WAR added, "I'm not going to mention what these
other identifications are, as they're all imaginary". GSHL Washington
also apparently claimed to be a grandson of Napoleon III!
popped up on Alt.Talk.Royalty in 2003 (and apparently the line is
included in Gary Boyd Roberts' RD500) but William Addams Reitwiesner
responded that it is 'demonstrably false'. He mentioned that GSHL
Washington wrote two later pieces, in Notes and Queries (vol 198 no2
[Dec 1953] pp527-9; vol 210 no2 [Feb 1965] pp43-7), in which he gave
two further, different mothers for Benedict Swingate (and fathers for
Gov. Charles Calvert). WAR added, "I'm not going to mention what these
other identifications are, as they're all imaginary". GSHL Washington
also apparently claimed to be a grandson of Napoleon III!
-
Gjest
Re: Thomas le Despenser
Dear Clive,
If finding the 'original' text (Latin, presumably) is possible, that
would be grand.
It does appear from the grandmother of Thomas le Despenser was named
Rohese [see below]; my own guess at present is that 'Recuare' is a different
name, either a poor rendering (possibly in the original - hoping not) or the
English transcription by Nichols or another. My theory that this might have been
Richeut, daughter of Hugh de Longchamp, is only that at present: Todd kindly
pointed out that Richeut would better be a deriviation from 'Richilda', so
'Recuare' is either a fine muddle of 'Richeut' or another name entirely.
Looking to see if Nichols' Leicestershire is on the shelves at the LOC
this week; good luck to us all.....
Cheers,
John
record of charter of Alicia, wife of Richard Frumentinus granting a gift
of land between Burton and Seggelhelwara etc. to Garendon priory:
Witnesses include: Asketill de Berges; Dionesia, wife of Asketill;
Rohesia, wife of Asketill de Berges; Aelicia, wife of Ivon of Prestwold. [Nichols,
Hist. Leicestershire, courtesy Clive West]
If finding the 'original' text (Latin, presumably) is possible, that
would be grand.
It does appear from the grandmother of Thomas le Despenser was named
Rohese [see below]; my own guess at present is that 'Recuare' is a different
name, either a poor rendering (possibly in the original - hoping not) or the
English transcription by Nichols or another. My theory that this might have been
Richeut, daughter of Hugh de Longchamp, is only that at present: Todd kindly
pointed out that Richeut would better be a deriviation from 'Richilda', so
'Recuare' is either a fine muddle of 'Richeut' or another name entirely.
Looking to see if Nichols' Leicestershire is on the shelves at the LOC
this week; good luck to us all.....
Cheers,
John
record of charter of Alicia, wife of Richard Frumentinus granting a gift
of land between Burton and Seggelhelwara etc. to Garendon priory:
Witnesses include: Asketill de Berges; Dionesia, wife of Asketill;
Rohesia, wife of Asketill de Berges; Aelicia, wife of Ivon of Prestwold. [Nichols,
Hist. Leicestershire, courtesy Clive West]
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Thomas le Despenser
Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Given the spelling, is it possible that "recuare" is in fact a VERB?
Doug McDonald
Dear Clive,
If finding the 'original' text (Latin, presumably) is possible, that
would be grand.
It does appear from the grandmother of Thomas le Despenser was named
Rohese [see below]; my own guess at present is that 'Recuare' is a different
name,
Given the spelling, is it possible that "recuare" is in fact a VERB?
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calve
Are you making a file of "false claims of royal descent"? I might be able
to add a few.
Will
to add a few.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
In a message dated 1/9/2006 3:15:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
foundation history will not do.)
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?
Will Johnson
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
foundation history will not do.)
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Will Johnson wrote:
If it's any help, the VCH account of Creake Abbey, online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38278, includes this
footnote, which suggests that the account of the foundation dates from the
13th century:
<<
There are articles on this abbey by the late Mr. Carthew, F.S.A. in Norf.
Arch. (vi. 314-59; vii, 153-69), which give many interesting extracts from,
and accounts of, charters and rolls among the muniments of Christ's College,
Cambridge. The statements in this sketch, where no reference is given, are
taken from these articles. There is a short thirteenth-century chartulary of
Creake, opening with an account of the foundation, which is given, with two
early charters in the Mon. (vi, 487-8). Bishop Kennett's extracts from it
are in Lansd. MS. 1040, fols. 203-4.
The abbey does seem to have had some connection with Gedney, as earlier on
it says:
<<
Land was also held by the abbey in Gedney, Lincolnshire, by the service of
finding a canon to celebrate daily in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr,
on the site of a messuage formerly belonging to Thomas Dory, and supporting
there five paupers, giving them daily a loaf of fifty shillings' weight,
broth, and beer, and a portion of either meat or fish, and a cloth tunic
every other year. This service Margaret, widow of John de Roos, alleged in
1341, had been discontinued for two years or more by the abbot.
Chris Phillips
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the
latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?
If it's any help, the VCH account of Creake Abbey, online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38278, includes this
footnote, which suggests that the account of the foundation dates from the
13th century:
<<
There are articles on this abbey by the late Mr. Carthew, F.S.A. in Norf.
Arch. (vi. 314-59; vii, 153-69), which give many interesting extracts from,
and accounts of, charters and rolls among the muniments of Christ's College,
Cambridge. The statements in this sketch, where no reference is given, are
taken from these articles. There is a short thirteenth-century chartulary of
Creake, opening with an account of the foundation, which is given, with two
early charters in the Mon. (vi, 487-8). Bishop Kennett's extracts from it
are in Lansd. MS. 1040, fols. 203-4.
The abbey does seem to have had some connection with Gedney, as earlier on
it says:
<<
Land was also held by the abbey in Gedney, Lincolnshire, by the service of
finding a canon to celebrate daily in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr,
on the site of a messuage formerly belonging to Thomas Dory, and supporting
there five paupers, giving them daily a loaf of fifty shillings' weight,
broth, and beer, and a portion of either meat or fish, and a cloth tunic
every other year. This service Margaret, widow of John de Roos, alleged in
1341, had been discontinued for two years or more by the abbot.
Chris Phillips
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calve
No I am not. From two sides I have heard about a_possible_yes_, by showing
those a very serious_no_ has emerged therefor in m y database it will remain
a no. At least until someone can come up with compelling information
confirming the link.
The danger with showing false claims is that someone may take it serious. If
you think I have wrong lines in my system---tell me and I change them. I
prefer to err on the side of caution.
Hope you agree. Many thanks for the offer
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calvert
those a very serious_no_ has emerged therefor in m y database it will remain
a no. At least until someone can come up with compelling information
confirming the link.
The danger with showing false claims is that someone may take it serious. If
you think I have wrong lines in my system---tell me and I change them. I
prefer to err on the side of caution.
Hope you agree. Many thanks for the offer
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - Benedict Swingate/Calvert
Are you making a file of "false claims of royal descent"? I might be
able
to add a few.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
There's is one that has been mentioned on this list in the past, and of
which I happen to have a particular quite unusual source.
To wit, I have an actual tree-shaped chart, about say 3 feet by 4 feet in
size, that purports to give all the descendents of a particular branch of the
CRAWFORD family to, or about to, the present day from some CRAWFORD American
immigrant.
However at the base, i.e. root, of this tree, is "the Earl of Crawford".
As was pointed out on this list, in the past, when someone (not I) brought
up this *ancestor*, the Earls of Crawford (at least at this point), were not
surnamed "Crawford".
Will Johnson
which I happen to have a particular quite unusual source.
To wit, I have an actual tree-shaped chart, about say 3 feet by 4 feet in
size, that purports to give all the descendents of a particular branch of the
CRAWFORD family to, or about to, the present day from some CRAWFORD American
immigrant.
However at the base, i.e. root, of this tree, is "the Earl of Crawford".
As was pointed out on this list, in the past, when someone (not I) brought
up this *ancestor*, the Earls of Crawford (at least at this point), were not
surnamed "Crawford".
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
If I am not wrong all Earls of Crawford are surnamed (de) Lindsay. Not
having seen that tree or the linking. Is it possible (drats) that that Earl
gave an illegitimate child the Crawford surname? Could that be the
explanation?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
having seen that tree or the linking. Is it possible (drats) that that Earl
gave an illegitimate child the Crawford surname? Could that be the
explanation?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
There's is one that has been mentioned on this list in the past, and of
which I happen to have a particular quite unusual source.
To wit, I have an actual tree-shaped chart, about say 3 feet by 4 feet in
size, that purports to give all the descendents of a particular branch of
the
CRAWFORD family to, or about to, the present day from some CRAWFORD
American
immigrant.
However at the base, i.e. root, of this tree, is "the Earl of Crawford".
As was pointed out on this list, in the past, when someone (not I) brought
up this *ancestor*, the Earls of Crawford (at least at this point), were
not
surnamed "Crawford".
Will Johnson
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
Dear Will,
You're quite correct re: the apparent problem in the chart you
mention - the Earls of Crawford were of the surname Lindsay (drawing
their title from the lands of Crawford, an earlier acquisition by
marriage).
However, things do get muddied from time to time. Patrick
Lindsay, younger son of John Lindsay, 17th of Crawford (and 1st Earl of
Lindsay) married a daughter of Crawford of Kilbernie, and their
descendants the Viscounts Garnock (down to their taking the title of
Earl of Crawford) typically are shown hyphenating the name as
Lindsay-Crawford.
Have you found how far back the descent on this chart is valid? I
often find statements such as, ' They traced their descent from
Alexander Cunningham, the first Earl of Glencairn. His descendant,
Richard Cuninghame, came to America....' which provide no intervening
detail or documentation despite the 200+ year gap between the
individuals.
[This is also of personal interest, given both Lindsay and
Crawford individuals in my own ancestry.........]
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You're quite correct re: the apparent problem in the chart you
mention - the Earls of Crawford were of the surname Lindsay (drawing
their title from the lands of Crawford, an earlier acquisition by
marriage).
However, things do get muddied from time to time. Patrick
Lindsay, younger son of John Lindsay, 17th of Crawford (and 1st Earl of
Lindsay) married a daughter of Crawford of Kilbernie, and their
descendants the Viscounts Garnock (down to their taking the title of
Earl of Crawford) typically are shown hyphenating the name as
Lindsay-Crawford.
Have you found how far back the descent on this chart is valid? I
often find statements such as, ' They traced their descent from
Alexander Cunningham, the first Earl of Glencairn. His descendant,
Richard Cuninghame, came to America....' which provide no intervening
detail or documentation despite the 200+ year gap between the
individuals.
[This is also of personal interest, given both Lindsay and
Crawford individuals in my own ancestry.........]
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There's is one that has been mentioned on this list in the past, and of
which I happen to have a particular quite unusual source.
To wit, I have an actual tree-shaped chart, about say 3 feet by 4 feet in
size, that purports to give all the descendents of a particular branch of the
CRAWFORD family to, or about to, the present day from some CRAWFORD American
immigrant.
However at the base, i.e. root, of this tree, is "the Earl of Crawford".
As was pointed out on this list, in the past, when someone (not I) brought
up this *ancestor*, the Earls of Crawford (at least at this point), were not
surnamed "Crawford".
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
In a message dated 1/9/2006 11:37:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, leovdpa
s@netspeed.com.au writes:
If I am not wrong all Earls of Crawford are surnamed (de) Lindsay. Not
having seen that tree or the linking. Is it possible (drats) that that Earl
gave an illegitimate child the Crawford surname? Could that be the
explanation?
Leo
The problem is Leo, that so far, even though there are hundreds of people
descendend and living, in this tree, no one has come up with any documentation
that the progenitor was related to the family of the Earl of Crawford or even
claimed it. The only claim is this hand-drawn, giant tree. At least to my
knowledge. And it's not an ancient drawing, it's modern. Although based on
one probably done, say 40 to 60 years ago, this one is probably say 10 to 15
years old.
Will Johnson
s@netspeed.com.au writes:
If I am not wrong all Earls of Crawford are surnamed (de) Lindsay. Not
having seen that tree or the linking. Is it possible (drats) that that Earl
gave an illegitimate child the Crawford surname? Could that be the
explanation?
Leo
The problem is Leo, that so far, even though there are hundreds of people
descendend and living, in this tree, no one has come up with any documentation
that the progenitor was related to the family of the Earl of Crawford or even
claimed it. The only claim is this hand-drawn, giant tree. At least to my
knowledge. And it's not an ancient drawing, it's modern. Although based on
one probably done, say 40 to 60 years ago, this one is probably say 10 to 15
years old.
Will Johnson
-
Clive West
Re: Thomas le Despenser
Although "Recuare" may look like an infinitive, the context and the capital
letter show that it can only be the genitive of a woman's name.
CNW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas le Despenser
letter show that it can only be the genitive of a woman's name.
CNW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas le Despenser
Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Dear Clive,
If finding the 'original' text (Latin, presumably) is possible, that
would be grand.
It does appear from the grandmother of Thomas le Despenser was named
Rohese [see below]; my own guess at present is that 'Recuare' is a
different name,
Given the spelling, is it possible that "recuare" is in fact a VERB?
Doug McDonald
______________________________
-
steven perkins
Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False
Sounds like something that may be tested through Y chromosome DNA analysis:
Lindsay DNA study:
http://www.clanlindsay.com/dna_project.htm
This page links to Crawford from Lindsay:
http://www.clanlindsay.com/new_page_7.htm
And this is a separate Crawford DNA study:
http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/c/crawford/
If your Crawford line is there it could be compared to the Lindsay
data, if they have some data from the Earl's line.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
On 1/9/06, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
Lindsay DNA study:
http://www.clanlindsay.com/dna_project.htm
This page links to Crawford from Lindsay:
http://www.clanlindsay.com/new_page_7.htm
And this is a separate Crawford DNA study:
http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/c/crawford/
If your Crawford line is there it could be compared to the Lindsay
data, if they have some data from the Earl's line.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
On 1/9/06, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2006 11:37:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, leovdpa
s@netspeed.com.au writes:
If I am not wrong all Earls of Crawford are surnamed (de) Lindsay. Not
having seen that tree or the linking. Is it possible (drats) that that Earl
gave an illegitimate child the Crawford surname? Could that be the
explanation?
Leo
The problem is Leo, that so far, even though there are hundreds of people
descendend and living, in this tree, no one has come up with any documentation
that the progenitor was related to the family of the Earl of Crawford or even
claimed it. The only claim is this hand-drawn, giant tree. At least to my
knowledge. And it's not an ancient drawing, it's modern. Although based on
one probably done, say 40 to 60 years ago, this one is probably say 10 to 15
years old.
Will Johnson
--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
-
CED
Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will:
I am refering to the document Richardson quoted in his original posting
of 02 January. It is what it says it is a "foundation history."
It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):
"This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
......"
This is an account, as it says, of the foundation of Creake Abbey.
This kind of history was written about religious foundations usually
many years after the grants were made and the grantors were dead.
Whatever else it may be, a foundation history is not primary evidence.
It is not from the original cartulary. At best it is a later addition,
as all histories are. Whatever this little history says about Hubert
de Burgh, it is hearsay, probably (since the report of the Battle of
Dover is included) from a reading of Matthew Paris.
CED
In a message dated 1/9/2006 3:15:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
foundation history will not do.)
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
Dear Will:
I am refering to the document Richardson quoted in his original posting
of 02 January. It is what it says it is a "foundation history."
It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):
"This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
......"
This is an account, as it says, of the foundation of Creake Abbey.
This kind of history was written about religious foundations usually
many years after the grants were made and the grantors were dead.
Whatever else it may be, a foundation history is not primary evidence.
It is not from the original cartulary. At best it is a later addition,
as all histories are. Whatever this little history says about Hubert
de Burgh, it is hearsay, probably (since the report of the Battle of
Dover is included) from a reading of Matthew Paris.
CED
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?
Will Johnson